BACKGROUND: In daily clinical practice second-line chemotherapy (SLCT) is frequently given to patients with advanced pancreatic cancer failing gemcitabine-based first-line chemotherapy without solid scientific support. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective survey was carried out including 42 patients. Patients received standard FOLFOX4 regimen biweekly until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Six partial responses (14%) and 16 stabilizations (38%) were recorded for a tumor growth control rate of 57%. The median time to progression (TtP) was 4 months (range 1-7 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 6.7 months (range 2-9 months). A stabilization of performance status (PS) and a subjective improvement of cancer-related symptoms were recorded in 27 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Data presented in this paper support the use of FOLFOX4 regimen in the second-line treatment of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas patients. The use of SLCT, however, should be carefully proposed to patients with good PS or those who had a good response to first-line therapy.
BACKGROUND: In daily clinical practice second-line chemotherapy (SLCT) is frequently given to patients with advanced pancreatic cancer failing gemcitabine-based first-line chemotherapy without solid scientific support. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective survey was carried out including 42 patients. Patients received standard FOLFOX4 regimen biweekly until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Six partial responses (14%) and 16 stabilizations (38%) were recorded for a tumor growth control rate of 57%. The median time to progression (TtP) was 4 months (range 1-7 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 6.7 months (range 2-9 months). A stabilization of performance status (PS) and a subjective improvement of cancer-related symptoms were recorded in 27 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Data presented in this paper support the use of FOLFOX4 regimen in the second-line treatment of adenocarcinoma of the pancreaspatients. The use of SLCT, however, should be carefully proposed to patients with good PS or those who had a good response to first-line therapy.
Authors: Igor A Astsaturov; Neal J Meropol; R Katherine Alpaugh; Barbara A Burtness; Jonathan D Cheng; Sue McLaughlin; André Rogatko; Zhiheng Xu; James C Watson; Louis M Weiner; Steven J Cohen Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Hassan K Dakik; Daniel J Moskovic; Peter J Carlson; Eric P Tamm; Wei Qiao; Robert A Wolff; James L Abbruzzese; David R Fogelman Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: György Bodoky; Constanta Timcheva; David Robert Spigel; Phillip Joseph La Stella; Tudor Eliade Ciuleanu; G Pover; N C Tebbutt Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Matthew B Lipner; Xianlu L Peng; Chong Jin; Yi Xu; Yanzhe Gao; Michael P East; Naim U Rashid; Richard A Moffitt; Silvia G Herrera Loeza; Ashley B Morrison; Brian T Golitz; Cyrus Vaziri; Lee M Graves; Gary L Johnson; Jen Jen Yeh Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-04-23
Authors: C Yoo; J Y Hwang; J-E Kim; T W Kim; J S Lee; D H Park; S S Lee; D W Seo; S K Lee; M-H Kim; D J Han; S C Kim; J-L Lee Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 7.640