ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Determine whether a regimen of fixed dose rate gemcitabine plus capecitabine is effective and tolerable for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 62 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated at the University of California San Francisco between 2008 and 2016. Treatment was an alternate week schedule of fixed dose rate 1000 mg/m gemcitabine and capecitabine 1000 mg/m (58 patients), 1200 mg/m (12 patients), or 650 mg/m (1 patient) for intended 12 cycles. We evaluated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), radiologic response, and adverse events necessitating treatment modification. RESULTS: For metastatic patients, median OS was 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-12.1 months), and PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.6-7.7 months). In locally advanced patients, OS was 12.0 months (95% CI, 4.9-17.1 months), and PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 2.5-9.4 months). Radiologic response for metastatic disease (42 patients) was 19% objective response, 45% stable disease, and 36% progressive disease. Treatment required modification for 22 patients due to adverse events, most frequently hand-foot syndrome (18 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Alternate week schedule of fixed dose rate gemcitabine and capecitabine was active and tolerable for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Overall survival and PFS were comparable to first-line treatments. Importantly, adverse effects appear less severe than first-line treatments.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/drug therapy , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Pancreatic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Capecitabine/administration & dosage , Capecitabine/adverse effects , Deoxycytidine/administration & dosage , Deoxycytidine/adverse effects , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Drug Administration Schedule , Fatigue/chemically induced , Female , Hand-Foot Syndrome/etiology , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Pancreatic Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , GemcitabineSubject(s)
Certification , Educational Measurement/methods , Radiology/education , Humans , Specialty Boards , United StatesABSTRACT
Fat necrosis of the breast is a challenging diagnosis due to the various appearances on mammography, ultrasound, CT, PET-CT, and MRI. Although mammography is more specific, ultrasound is a very important tool in making the diagnosis of fat necrosis. MRI has a wide spectrum of findings for fat necrosis and the appearance is the result of the amount of the inflammatory reaction, the amount of liquefied fat, and the degree of fibrosis. While CT and PET-CT are not first line imaging examinations for the diagnosis of breast cancer or fat necrosis, they are frequently performed in the surveillance and staging of disease. Knowledge of how fat necrosis presents on these additional imaging techniques is important to prevent misinterpretation of the imaging findings. Gross and microscopic appearances of fat necrosis depend on the age of the lesion; the histologic examination of fat necrosis is usually straightforward. Knowledge of the variable appearances of fat necrosis on a vast array of imaging modalities will enhance a radiologist's accuracy in the analysis and interpretation of fat necrosis versus other diagnoses.
