FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: Single-center cohort study
FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: Single-center cohort study
复制标题
DOI：
10.4251/wjgo.v12.i2.182
复制
发表时间：
2020-02-15
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Bang, Seungmin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cho, In Rae;Kang, Huapyong;Bang, Seungmin
最近，Gem + nabPTX（吉西他滨+ nabPTX）被引入转移性胰腺癌治疗。然而，在这方面，目的比较FOLFIRINOX和Gem + nabPTX方案治疗韩国人群转移性胰腺癌的疗效。自2015年1月以来，使用Severance医院胰腺癌队列登记确定了行。FOLFIRINOX组的患者明显更年轻（54岁vs 65岁; P < 0.001），诊断时的体能状态更好。与Gem + nabPTX组相比，中位总生存期（10.7 vs 12.1 mo; P = 0.157）、无进展生存期（8.0 vs 8.4 mo; P = 0.134）和客观缓解率（33.7% vs 46.9%; P = 0.067）无显著差异。FOLFIRINOX组中≥ 3级中性粒细胞减少和胃肠道不良事件更常见。两种方案的药物费用相似。结论两种方案的治疗效果和经济负担相当。但是，不良事件的细节不同。Gem + nabPTX方案在一定条件下可优先考虑。
BACKGROUNDFOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (Gem + nabPTX) were recently introduced for metastatic pancreatic cancer treatment. However, studies that compared these two regimens and studies in Asian populations are lacking.AIMTo compare the treatment outcomes of FOLFIRINOX and Gem + nabPTX regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer treatment in Korean population.METHODSPatients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX (n = 86) or Gem + nabPTX (n = 81) as the first-line since January 2015 were identified using the Severance Hospital Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Registry. Treatment efficacy, treatment-related adverse events and economic aspects were compared.RESULTSPatients in the FOLFIRINOX group were significantly younger (54 vs 65 years; P < 0.001) and had better performance statuses at diagnosis. The median overall survival (10.7 vs 12.1 mo; P = 0.157), progression-free survival (8.0 vs 8.4 mo; P = 0.134), and objective response rates (33.7% vs 46.9%; P = 0.067) were not significantly different when compared with Gem + nabPTX group. Grade >= 3 neutropenia and gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the FOLFIRINOX group. The drug costs of both regimens were similar.CONCLUSIONTreatment efficacy and economic burdens were comparable between the two regimens. But, the details of adverse event were different. Gem + nabPTX regimen might be considered preferentially in certain conditions.