Tulay Kus1, Gokmen Aktas2, Mehmet Emin Kalender2, Alper Sevinc2, Celaletdin Camci2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep Oncology Hospital, 27310, Gaziantep, TR, Turkey. drtulaykus83@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep Oncology Hospital, 27310, Gaziantep, TR, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the different treatment options of patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) who were treated with platinum-gemcitabine (CG) or platinum-5-fluorouracil (CF) or 5-Fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) chemotherapy. METHODS: We included the patients with advanced BTC who were registered at the Department of Oncology in Gaziantep University between January 2008 and January 2016. The following data were analyzed: disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) of first and second-line of chemotherapy, and overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test was used to compare two survival curves, and hazard regression model was used to evaluate risk factors for PFS. RESULT: Ninety-two patients were recruited. 53 (57.6 %), 27 (29.3 %), and 12 (13 %) patients received CG, CF, and FOLFIRINOX regimen as first-line chemotherapy, respectively. Median PFS and DCR of CG group were 22 weeks and 56.6 %, and these were 12 weeks and 44.4 % for CF group, and 9 weeks and 41.7 % for FOLFIRINOX group. Median OS of CG, CF, and FOLFIRINOX groups was 28, 21,and 23.5 weeks, respectively (p = 0.497). Second-line PFS of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy group and gemcitabine-based chemotherapy group was 12 vs. 14 weeks (p = 0.988). Second-line PFS of FOLFIRINOX was 20 weeks, whereas it was 14 weeks for other fuoropyrimidine-based chemotherapies (p = 0.190). CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study evaluating the FOLFIRINOX regimen in BTC. Cisplatin-gemcitabine therapy still provides better survival in BCT. However, FOLFIRINOX can be an option in the second-line treatment of BTC patients who are eligible for chemotherapy.
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the different treatment options of patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) who were treated with platinum-gemcitabine (CG) or platinum-5-fluorouracil (CF) or 5-Fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) chemotherapy. METHODS: We included the patients with advanced BTC who were registered at the Department of Oncology in Gaziantep University between January 2008 and January 2016. The following data were analyzed: disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) of first and second-line of chemotherapy, and overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test was used to compare two survival curves, and hazard regression model was used to evaluate risk factors for PFS. RESULT: Ninety-two patients were recruited. 53 (57.6 %), 27 (29.3 %), and 12 (13 %) patients received CG, CF, and FOLFIRINOX regimen as first-line chemotherapy, respectively. Median PFS and DCR of CG group were 22 weeks and 56.6 %, and these were 12 weeks and 44.4 % for CF group, and 9 weeks and 41.7 % for FOLFIRINOX group. Median OS of CG, CF, and FOLFIRINOX groups was 28, 21,and 23.5 weeks, respectively (p = 0.497). Second-line PFS of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy group and gemcitabine-based chemotherapy group was 12 vs. 14 weeks (p = 0.988). Second-line PFS of FOLFIRINOX was 20 weeks, whereas it was 14 weeks for other fuoropyrimidine-based chemotherapies (p = 0.190). CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study evaluating the FOLFIRINOX regimen in BTC. Cisplatin-gemcitabine therapy still provides better survival in BCT. However, FOLFIRINOX can be an option in the second-line treatment of BTC patients who are eligible for chemotherapy.
Authors: Davendra P S Sohal; Pamela B Mangu; Alok A Khorana; Manish A Shah; Philip A Philip; Eileen M O'Reilly; Hope E Uronis; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Christopher H Crane; Anitra Engebretson; Joseph T Ruggiero; Mehmet S Copur; Michelle Lau; Susan Urba; Daniel Laheru Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Juan Valle; Harpreet Wasan; Daniel H Palmer; David Cunningham; Alan Anthoney; Anthony Maraveyas; Srinivasan Madhusudan; Tim Iveson; Sharon Hughes; Stephen P Pereira; Michael Roughton; John Bridgewater Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michelle L DeOliveira; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Farin Kamangar; Jordan M Winter; Keith D Lillemoe; Michael A Choti; Charles J Yeo; Richard D Schulick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Andrew X Zhu; Keith Stuart; David P Ryan; Lawrence Blaszkowsky; Nicole Lehman; Craig C Earle; Matthew H Kulke; Pankaj Bhargava; Charles S Fuchs Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2007-06-29 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: T Okusaka; K Nakachi; A Fukutomi; N Mizuno; S Ohkawa; A Funakoshi; M Nagino; S Kondo; S Nagaoka; J Funai; M Koshiji; Y Nambu; J Furuse; M Miyazaki; Y Nimura Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Florian Moik; Jakob M Riedl; Thomas Winder; Angelika Terbuch; Christopher H Rossmann; Joanna Szkandera; Thomas Bauernhofer; Anne-Katrin Kasparek; Renate Schaberl-Moser; Andreas Reicher; Felix Prinz; Martin Pichler; Herbert Stöger; Michael Stotz; Armin Gerger; Florian Posch Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: L Perkhofer; A W Berger; A K Beutel; E Gallmeier; S Angermeier; L Fischer von Weikersthal; T O Goetze; R Muche; T Seufferlein; T J Ettrich Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 4.430