Cargando…
Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach
BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been recommended as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, the evidence is lacking comparing not only two regimens, but also sequential treatment (FFX–GnP vs. GnP–FFX). METHODS: Data of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8114681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33975561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08277-7 |
_version_ | 1783691100125396992 |
---|---|
author | Chun, Jung Won Lee, Sang Hyub Kim, Joo Seong Park, Namyoung Huh, Gunn Cho, In Rae Paik, Woo Hyun Ryu, Ji Kon Kim, Yong-Tae |
author_facet | Chun, Jung Won Lee, Sang Hyub Kim, Joo Seong Park, Namyoung Huh, Gunn Cho, In Rae Paik, Woo Hyun Ryu, Ji Kon Kim, Yong-Tae |
author_sort | Chun, Jung Won |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been recommended as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, the evidence is lacking comparing not only two regimens, but also sequential treatment (FFX–GnP vs. GnP–FFX). METHODS: Data of 528 patients (FFX, n = 371; GnP, n = 157) with mPC were collected retrospectively. Propensity score matching was conducted to alleviate imbalance of the two groups. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and toxicity of patients were analyzed. RESULTS: In the whole population, OS (12.5 months vs. 10.3 months, P = 0.05) and PFS (7.1 months vs. 5.8 months, P = 0.02) were longer in the FFX group before matching and after matching (OS: 11.8 months vs. 10.3 months, P = 0.02; PFS: 7.2 months vs. 5.8 months, P < 0.01). For sequential treatment, OS and PFS showed no significant difference. Interruptions of chemotherapy due to toxicities were more frequent (6.8 vs. 29.3%, P < 0.001) in the GnP group, and cessation of chemotherapy showed a significant association with mortality (z = − 1.94, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: FFX achieved a longer overall survival than GnP in mPC, but not in the comparison for sequential treatment. More frequent adverse events followed by treatment interruptions during GnP might lead to a poor survival outcome. Therefore, FFX would be a better first-line treatment option than GnP for mPC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08277-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8114681 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81146812021-05-12 Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach Chun, Jung Won Lee, Sang Hyub Kim, Joo Seong Park, Namyoung Huh, Gunn Cho, In Rae Paik, Woo Hyun Ryu, Ji Kon Kim, Yong-Tae BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been recommended as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, the evidence is lacking comparing not only two regimens, but also sequential treatment (FFX–GnP vs. GnP–FFX). METHODS: Data of 528 patients (FFX, n = 371; GnP, n = 157) with mPC were collected retrospectively. Propensity score matching was conducted to alleviate imbalance of the two groups. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and toxicity of patients were analyzed. RESULTS: In the whole population, OS (12.5 months vs. 10.3 months, P = 0.05) and PFS (7.1 months vs. 5.8 months, P = 0.02) were longer in the FFX group before matching and after matching (OS: 11.8 months vs. 10.3 months, P = 0.02; PFS: 7.2 months vs. 5.8 months, P < 0.01). For sequential treatment, OS and PFS showed no significant difference. Interruptions of chemotherapy due to toxicities were more frequent (6.8 vs. 29.3%, P < 0.001) in the GnP group, and cessation of chemotherapy showed a significant association with mortality (z = − 1.94, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: FFX achieved a longer overall survival than GnP in mPC, but not in the comparison for sequential treatment. More frequent adverse events followed by treatment interruptions during GnP might lead to a poor survival outcome. Therefore, FFX would be a better first-line treatment option than GnP for mPC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08277-7. BioMed Central 2021-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8114681/ /pubmed/33975561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08277-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chun, Jung Won Lee, Sang Hyub Kim, Joo Seong Park, Namyoung Huh, Gunn Cho, In Rae Paik, Woo Hyun Ryu, Ji Kon Kim, Yong-Tae Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach |
title | Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach |
title_full | Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach |
title_fullStr | Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach |
title_short | Comparison between FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach |
title_sort | comparison between folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel including sequential treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matching approach |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8114681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33975561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08277-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chunjungwon comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT leesanghyub comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT kimjooseong comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT parknamyoung comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT huhgunn comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT choinrae comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT paikwoohyun comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT ryujikon comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach AT kimyongtae comparisonbetweenfolfirinoxandgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelincludingsequentialtreatmentformetastaticpancreaticcancerapropensityscorematchingapproach |