ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: Gemcitabine combined with non-cremophor-based paclitaxel is one of the standards of care in advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. This study was undertaken to retrospectively evaluate real world non-trial outcomes with this combination. Methods: Patients with histologically proven advanced inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), treated with non-cremophor-based paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination (PG) (gemcitabine-nanoxel or gemcitabine-abraxane) between January 2012 and June 2015, were retrospectively analyzed. Response assessment was done every 8-12 wk with computed tomography scan and responses were measured as per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria where feasible. Toxicity was recorded as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4 criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 78 patients with PDAC were treated with the combination. Of these, 83.3 per cent of patients had metastatic disease. The median number of chemotherapy cycles administered was three. The objective response rate for the whole group was 30.8 per cent. Grade III/IV toxicities were seen in 35.9 per cent of patients. Median PFS was 5.6 months and median OS was 11.6 months. Interpretation & conclusions: Non-cremophor-based paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine appeared efficacious for advanced pancreatic cancers in routine clinical practice. Within the confines of a single-centre retrospective analysis, gemcitabine-nanoxel and gemcitabine-abraxane appeared to have similar efficacy and toxicity in advanced pancreatic cancers.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Unlike the developed countries, there is a lack of good epidemiologic data for testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) in India with majority presenting in advanced stage. This study aims to elaborate on the epidemiology of testicular GCTs and response to standard first‑line chemotherapy (CT). METHODS: GCTs treated at our center from January 2013 to June 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients underwent orchidectomy either outside or at our hospital. Based on stage and risk group, standard CT (bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin/etoposide and cisplatin/carboplatin AUC7) and radiotherapy were given as appropriate. Response was calculated based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 18 software. RESULTS: Fifty nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT) and 36 of SGCT cases were studied. 30%, 46%, and 64% of NSGCT and 11%, 28%, and 22% of SGCT had N2, N3, and M1 diseases, respectively. The mean nodal size was 7 cm (1.5–19) in NSGCT and 5.5 cm (1.3–11) in SGCT. As per the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group classification, in patients with metastatic disease, 9% of NSGCT were good, 53% were intermediate, and 38% were poor risk whereas 75% of SGCT were good and 25% were intermediate risk. Following CT among NSGCT, 5% and 71% had radiologic complete response (CR) and partial response (PR), respectively. Among SGCT, 46% and 38% had radiologic CR and PR, respectively. 22%, 53%, and 13% of NSGCT and 12%, 24%, and 20% of SGCT developed febrile neutropenia, Grade 3 or 4 hematological and nonhematological toxicities, respectively, after standard chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: GCTs in India present with high nodal and high‑risk diseases wherein the standard first‑line CT may not be adequate as curative therapy; however, significant chemotoxicity is also a hindrance.