Jane E Rogers1, Jonathan D Mizrahi2, Graciela M Nogueras Gonzalez3, Rishi Surana2, Rachna T Shroff4, Robert Wolff5, Gauri R Varadhachary5, Milind M Javle5, Michael Overman5, Kanwal Raghav5, Shubham Pant5,6. 1. Pharmacy Clinical Programs, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Investigation Cancer Therapeutics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Objective responses to first-line systemic chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients are seen in less than one third of cases. Unfortunately, a significant amount will have disease progression (PD) on their first restaging imaging. With patients' short life expectancy, it is crucial for clinicians to be prudent when deciding whom and when to treat. Our study aimed to evaluate outcomes of patients that progressed on their first restaging imaging on 1st line therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed between 2010-2017 whose first restaging imaging demonstrated PD. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from metastatic diagnosis date to death. Patients who were lost to follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: Out of 262 total patients reviewed, 98 patients (37%) were included. Sixty-five (66%) received 2nd line therapy, and 33 (34%) did not. Reasons patients did not pursue 2nd line therapy were performance status (PS) decline, organ dysfunction, or patient choice for alternative therapy. Median ages for patients who did and did not receive 2nd line therapy were 61 and 67, respectively (P<0.001). More patients had a poor PS at the time of initial diagnosis in the non-2nd line therapy group (7.5% vs. 31.0%, P=0.021). Median OS for those receiving 2nd line therapy was 9 months (95% CI: 7-11 months) compared to 4 months (95% CI: 3-5 months) for those not receiving 2nd-line therapy (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although likely biased due to better performance status and younger age, our patients who progressed rapidly on 1st line therapy showed an OS benefit if they received 2nd line therapy. These results suggest that patients maintaining a good PS after immediate progression on 1st line therapy should be offered 2nd line therapy. 2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Objective responses to first-line systemic chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients are seen in less than one third of cases. Unfortunately, a significant amount will have disease progression (PD) on their first restaging imaging. With patients' short life expectancy, it is crucial for clinicians to be prudent when deciding whom and when to treat. Our study aimed to evaluate outcomes of patients that progressed on their first restaging imaging on 1st line therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed between 2010-2017 whose first restaging imaging demonstrated PD. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from metastatic diagnosis date to death. Patients who were lost to follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: Out of 262 total patients reviewed, 98 patients (37%) were included. Sixty-five (66%) received 2nd line therapy, and 33 (34%) did not. Reasons patients did not pursue 2nd line therapy were performance status (PS) decline, organ dysfunction, or patient choice for alternative therapy. Median ages for patients who did and did not receive 2nd line therapy were 61 and 67, respectively (P<0.001). More patients had a poor PS at the time of initial diagnosis in the non-2nd line therapy group (7.5% vs. 31.0%, P=0.021). Median OS for those receiving 2nd line therapy was 9 months (95% CI: 7-11 months) compared to 4 months (95% CI: 3-5 months) for those not receiving 2nd-line therapy (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although likely biased due to better performance status and younger age, our patients who progressed rapidly on 1st line therapy showed an OS benefit if they received 2nd line therapy. These results suggest that patients maintaining a good PS after immediate progression on 1st line therapy should be offered 2nd line therapy. 2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Andrea Wang-Gillam; Chung-Pin Li; György Bodoky; Andrew Dean; Yan-Shen Shan; Gayle Jameson; Teresa Macarulla; Kyung-Hun Lee; David Cunningham; Jean F Blanc; Richard A Hubner; Chang-Fang Chiu; Gilberto Schwartsmann; Jens T Siveke; Fadi Braiteh; Victor Moyo; Bruce Belanger; Navreet Dhindsa; Eliel Bayever; Daniel D Von Hoff; Li-Tzong Chen Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-11-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel D Von Hoff; Thomas Ervin; Francis P Arena; E Gabriela Chiorean; Jeffrey Infante; Malcolm Moore; Thomas Seay; Sergei A Tjulandin; Wen Wee Ma; Mansoor N Saleh; Marion Harris; Michele Reni; Scot Dowden; Daniel Laheru; Nathan Bahary; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Josep Tabernero; Manuel Hidalgo; David Goldstein; Eric Van Cutsem; Xinyu Wei; Jose Iglesias; Markus F Renschler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew McGuigan; Paul Kelly; Richard C Turkington; Claire Jones; Helen G Coleman; R Stephen McCain Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742