A phase-I study of second-line S-IROX for unresectable pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel failure.

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX are widely used as first-line regimens for unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). When GnP therapy is selected, considering patient age or condition, second-line FOLFIRINOX is sometimes difficult to administer owing to its toxicity. This study aimed to determine the recommended dose (RD) of S-IROX (S-1, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan combination) regimens in patients with unresectable PC after first-line GnP failure. This phase-I study used the "3 + 3" dose-escalation design with two dose levels. Patients who failed first-line GnP therapy for unresectable PC were enrolled. Oxaliplatin and irinotecan were administered on day 1, and S-1 was administered orally twice daily on days 1-7, followed by 7 days of rest. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and determination of RD. The secondary endpoint was the evaluation of potential antitumor activity. Nine patients received the second-line S-IROX regimen. In level-0 (S-1, 80 mg/m2; oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2; and irinotecan, 120 mg/m2), no patient experienced DLT; however, one patient experienced grade 3 neutropenia. At level-1 (irinotecan increased to 150 mg/m2), one of six patients experienced DLTs, including G3 diarrhea. The RD was confirmed at the level-1 dose. The response rate, disease control rate, median progression-free survival, and median overall survival were 33.3%, 77.8%, 172 (range:77-422) days, and 414 (101-685) days, respectively. One patient underwent surgery after the second-line S-IROX therapy. Second-line S-IROX treatment was deemed acceptable. The RD was set at level-1 dose (S-1, 80 mg/m2; oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2; and irinotecan, 150 mg/m2).

Prognostic analysis and outcomes of metastatic pancreatic cancer patients receiving nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as second or later-line treatment.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) first-line therapy often consists of polychemotherapy regimens, but choosing a second-line therapy after disease progression, especially following first-line FOLFIRINOX, remains a clinical challenge. This study presents results from a large, multicenter, retrospective analysis of Italian patients with metastatic PC (mPC) treated with Nab-paclitaxel/Gemcitabine (AG) as second or later line of treatment. Main objective of the study is to identify prognostic factors that could inform treatment decisions. METHODS: The study included 160 mPC patients treated with AG in 17 Italian institutions. AG was administered according to labelling dose, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient refusal. Variations in schedules, dose modifications, supportive measures, and response evaluation were determined by individual clinicians' practice. RESULTS: AG was well-tolerated and exhibited promising clinical activity. The overall response rate (ORR) and the disease control rate (DCR) were 22.5% and 45.6%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9 and 6.8 months, respectively. Among the patients who received AG as a second-line therapy (n = 111, 66.9%), median PFS and OS were 4.2 and 7.4 months, respectively. Notably, in the 76 patients (68%) receiving AG after first-line FOLFIRINOX, an ORR of 19.7% and a DCR of 46.0% were observed, resulting in a median PFS of 3.5 and median OS of 5.7 months. The study identified specific clinical or laboratory parameters (LDH, NLR, fasting serum glucose, liver metastases, ECOG PS, and first-line PFS) as independent prognostic factors at multivariate level. These factors were used to create a prognostic nomogram that divided patients into three risk classes, helping to predict second-line OS and PFS. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest real-world population of mPC patients treated with AG as a second or later line of therapy. It supports the feasibility of this regimen following first-line FOLFIRINOX, particularly in patients with specific clinical and laboratory characteristics who derived prolonged benefit from first-line therapy.

Docetaxel Plus Nedaplatin or Carboplatin as Second-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Real-World Practice: A Single-Center Experience.

Although single-drug chemotherapy regimens were used as second-line chemotherapy for advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) patients, there are still no standard guidelines for second-line chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel combined with nedaplatin or carboplatin in the second-line treatment of advanced LSCC patients. One hundred and ninety-six LSCC patients receiving docetaxel plus nedaplatin (DN, n = 96) or carboplatin (DC, n = 100) were retrospectively collected until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed in the two groups. The ORR was 18.8% versus 16.0%, and the DCR was 39.6% versus 34.0% in DN group and DC group (P > .05 and P > .05), respectively. The PFS was 5.3 versus 3.8 months, and the OS was 8.5 and 6.7 months in DN group and DC group (P = .013 and P = .404), respectively. The rate of digestive reaction and hepatotoxicity was similar in DN and DC groups, whereas more patients in DC group than in DN group suffered from leucopenia (P < .05). Docetaxel combined with nedaplatin is an effective regimen for advanced LSCC patients. Compared with a similar regimen with carboplatin, the response rate was similar; however, nedaplatin regimen shows some superiority as regards survival and some treatment side effect.

A Systematic Review of Chemotherapeutic Regimens Used in Pancreatic Cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is a malignant tumor with one of the worst prognosis. Its incidence has been on the rise in recent years. First-line and second-line treatments as well as adjuvant therapies have been employed in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer along with traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy that has been enhanced. The prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still quite bad despite recent improvements in diagnostic and treatment methods. Since most patients are not candidates for treatment with a curative purpose, effective palliative care is crucial. For this systematic review, between December 25, 2022, and January 5, 2023, we searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Science Direct and discovered 225 relevant articles. The appropriateness of the literature abstracts for the pooled analysis was evaluated using different combinations of keywords such as pancreatic cancer, first- and second-line chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and fluorouracil. Eight research studies with a total of 15,236 people, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included. The only treatment of choice for patients without metastatic disease who have clinical staging that suggests resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) should be resection. This research examined how first- and second-line chemotherapeutic regimens (using different drug combinations) affected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or BRPC and how they responded in terms of overall survival (OS), tumor resectability, and progression-free interval. The review concludes by highlighting the results of these therapies. Notably, a growing body of research indicates that the two most popular first-line medication combinations GnP and FFX have similar results in RCTs and in real-world populations. Results of second-line therapy after first-line regime failure are still dismal, and there is still a great deal of doubt regarding the best course of action. More RCTs and real-world evidence studies that address current and innovative regimens, as well as the best order in which to administer them, are required, with a greater emphasis on targeted therapy with fewer side effects.

Skeletal Muscle Mass Before Second-line Chemotherapy Correlates With Subsequent Prognosis and Rate of Late-line Chemotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Chemotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with unresectable gastric cancer (UGC); however, the survival outcomes are poor. This study investigated the predictive values of skeletal muscle mass (SMM) index (SMI) before second-line chemotherapy and the survival outcomes of patients with UGC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 79 patients diagnosed with UGC at our hospital who received at least second-line palliative chemotherapy were included. The cross-sectional SMM at the third lumbar vertebra was obtained before second-line chemotherapy. SMI was defined as the muscle area normalized by height squared (m2), and SMI before second-line chemotherapy was defined as 2ndSMI. RESULTS: Using 2ndSMI for men and women (35.4 and 31.7 cm2/m2, respectively) as the cutoff value, patients were divided into high (2ndSMIHigh; n=54) and low (2ndSMILow; n=25) 2ndSMI groups. The number of patients receiving fourth-line chemotherapy was significantly higher in the 2ndSMIHigh group than in the 2ndSMILow group (p=0.039). The overall survival time after the start of second-line chemotherapy was significantly higher in the 2ndSMIHigh group than in the 2ndSMILow group (p=0.008). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 side effects was significantly higher in the 2ndSMILow than in the 2ndSMIHigh group (p=0.028). The multivariate analysis identified 2ndSMI as independent prognostic factor after the start of second-line chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The 2ndSMILow group had a significantly worse prognosis and significantly less conversion to fourth-line chemotherapy than the 2ndSMIHigh group. Moreover, 2ndSMILow was associated with grade 3 or 4 side effects of second-line chemotherapy.

Importance of Progression-free Survival in Second-line Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Impact of second-line chemotherapy in unresectable advanced/recurrent gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer (AGC) remains unclear. This retrospective analysis aimed to identify factors affecting prognosis in chemotherapy for patients with AGC, including the importance of progression-free survival in second-line chemotherapy (PFS-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from a total of 109 patients with AGC that received second-line treatment were analyzed with the aim of clarifying prognostic factors. Furthermore, the correlation between PFS-2 and clinical characteristics and the association between PFS-2 and inflammation-based and/or nutritional markers were investigated. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis identified the following prognostic factors: ECOG PS ≥1, presence of peritoneal dissemination, metastasis in two or more organs, and taxane use on second-line chemotherapy. Short PFS-2 was strongly associated with prognosis in the univariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR)=3.107, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.969-4.904, p<0.001]. The duration of PFS-2 was significantly correlated with ECOG PS (p=0.019), liver metastasis rates (p=0.035) and taxane use on second-line chemotherapy (p=0.001). In addition, weight loss rate during first-line treatment (p=0.042), white blood cell count (p=0.008), C-reactive protein (p=0.032), c-reactive protein to albumin ratio (p=0.039), prognostic index (p=0.028), and modified Glasgow prognostic score (p=0.027) were significantly associated with the duration of PFS-2. CONCLUSION: The duration of PFS-2 significantly correlated with ECOG PS, liver metastasis, and taxane use on second-line treatment, and strongly affected OS. It was suggested that the presence of malnutrition and inflammation at the start of second-line therapy had a negative impact on PFS-2 and OS.

Second-Line Chemotherapy for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinomas: What Is the Real Gain?

BACKGROUND: The presence of actionable alterations in advanced biliary tract cancer patients opened new therapeutic possibilities for second-line treatments. However, for around 60% of the patients, chemotherapy remains the only therapeutic option. The aim of our study was to evaluate outcomes and prognostic parameters in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas treated with second-line chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 255 consecutive metastatic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) patients were retrospectively reviewed and clinicopathologic and survival data were collected. RESULTS: Fourty-four percent of ICC patients underwent second-line chemotherapy. In particular, younger ICC patients with better ECOG PS status, and with disease control after first-line chemotherapy were those who were treated with second-line treatments. Median progression-free survival in the patients treated with second-line chemotherapy was 3 months. Finally, the patients affected by intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with better ECOG PS, with prior surgical resection of the primary tumor, who responded to first-line chemotherapy, and had better progression-free survival with second-line chemotherapy, were associated with better outcomes in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Not all patients seem to benefit from second-line chemotherapy. To improve therapeutic decisions, performance status and disease control with first-line chemotherapy should lead to the decision on the usefulness of second-line treatments in advanced ICC patients.

Safety and efficacy of amrubicin with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim as second-line chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Amrubicin (AMR) regimens have shown efficacy as second-line treatment in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC); however, adverse events such as febrile neutropenia (FN) sometimes preclude their use. Further, the safety and efficacy of AMR with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim (P-PEG) have not been sufficiently evaluated. In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of AMR with or without P-PEG as second-line chemotherapy for SCLC. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with SCLC who received AMR as second-line chemotherapy at Shizuoka Cancer Center, between December 2014 and November 2021. Based on presence/absence of P-PEG in their regimen, patients (n = 60) were divided into P-PEG (n = 21) and non-P-PEG groups, and their clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Median of AMR treatment cycles was five (range: 1-39 cycles) in P-PEG group and four (range: 1-15 cycles) in non-P-PEG group. The incidence of FN (4.8% vs. 30.8%; p = 0.02) and AMR dose reduction because of adverse events (4.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.08) were lower in the P-PEG group than in the non-P-PEG group. The objective response rates were 52.4% and 30.8%, and median progression-free and overall survival were 4.7 and 3.0 months, and 9.6 and 6.8 months, in the P-PEG and non-P-PEG groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AMR with P-PEG as second-line chemotherapy for SCLC reduced the incidence of FN at a maintained AMR dose intensity and was associated with favorable tumor responses and survival outcomes. P-PEG should be considered for patients treated with AMR for SCLC including refractory relapsed SCLC.

Efficacy analysis of single-agent carboplatin AUC4 2-weekly as second-line therapy for methotrexate-resistant (MTX-R) low risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN).

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of patients with low-risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia (WHO 0-6) develop methotrexate-resistance (MTX-R). In the UK, subsequent treatment with either actinomycin-D (ActD) or multi-agent combination chemotherapy has depended on whether the hCG was above or below an hCG threshold. To reduce exposure to combination chemotherapy (CC), over the years the UK service has raised this threshold as well as using single-agent carboplatin AUC6 3-weekly at MTX-R instead of CC. Updated results for carboplatin demonstrate an 86% complete hCG response (hCG CR) but associated with haematological dose-limiting toxicity. METHODS: In 2017, single-agent carboplatin became the national standard second-line treatment following MTX-R at hCG of >3000 IU/L. Carboplatin was changed to two-weekly AUC4 scheduling and continued until normal hCG plus 3 consolidation cycles. For patients failing to respond, CC (Etoposide-Actinomycin-D or EMA-CO) was introduced. RESULTS: 22 evaluable patients with a median hCG at MTX-R of 10,147 IU/L (IQR 5527-19,639) received carboplatin AUC4 2-weekly (median no. of cycles = 6, IQR 2-8). Of these, 36% achieved a hCG CR. All 14 non-CR patients were cured with subsequent CC; 11 and 2 patients with 3rd line and 4th line CC respectively and 1 patient following 5th line CC and hysterectomy. Overall survival remains 100%. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin is not sufficiently active in the second-line treatment of low-risk MTX-resistant GTN. New strategies are required to increase hCG CR and spare more toxic CC regimens.

Second-line treatment of pediatric patients with relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma adapted to initial risk stratification: Data of the European Soft Tissue Sarcoma Registry (SoTiSaR).

BACKGROUND: Outcome of relapsed disease of localized rhabdomyosarcoma remains poor. An individual treatment approach considering the initial systemic treatment and risk group was included in the Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS) Guidance. METHODS: Second-line chemotherapy (sCHT) ACCTTIVE based on anthracyclines (adriamycin, carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, topotecan, vincristine, etoposide) was recommended for patients with initial low- (LR), standard- (SR), and high-risk (HR) group after initial treatment without anthracyclines. TECC (topotecan, etoposide, carboplatin, cyclophosphamide) was recommended after initial anthracycline-based regimen in the very high-risk (VHR) group. Data of patients with relapse (n = 68) registered in the European Soft Tissue Sarcoma Registry SoTiSaR (2009-2018) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Patients of initial LR (n = 2), SR (n = 16), HR (n = 41), and VHR (n = 9) group relapsed. sCHT consisted of ACCTTIVE (n = 36), TECC (n = 12), or other (n = 15). Resection was performed in 40/68 (59%) patients and/or radiotherapy in 47/68 (69%). Initial risk stratification, pattern/time to relapse, and achievement of second complete remission were significant prognostic factors. Microscopically incomplete resection with additional radiotherapy was not inferior to microscopically complete resection (p = .17). The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 26% (±12%) and 31% (±14%). The 5-year OS of patients with relapse of SR, HR, and VHR groups was 80% (±21%), 20% (±16%), and 13% (±23%, p = .008), respectively. CONCLUSION: Adapted systemic treatment of relapsed disease considering the initial risk group and initial treatment is reasonable. New treatment options are needed for patients of initial HR and VHR groups.

Treatment for taxane-resistant cutaneous angiosarcoma: A multicenter study of 50 Japanese cases.

Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is a rare and highly aggressive type of vascular tumor. Although chemoradiotherapy with taxanes is recognized as a first-line therapy for CAS, second-line therapy for CAS remains controversial. From the above findings, the efficacy and safety profiles of taxane-switch (change paclitaxel to docetaxel or vise), eribulin methylate, and pazopanib regimens in second-line chemotherapy were evaluated retrospectively in 50 Japanese taxane-resistant CAS patients. Although there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (P = 0.3528) among the regimens, the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) (P = 0.0386), as well as severe G3 or more AEs (P = 0.0477) was significantly higher in the eribulin methylate group and pazopanib group than in the taxane-switch group. The present data suggest that switching to another taxane should be considered for the treatment of taxane-resistant CAS in second-line therapy based on the safety profiles.

Oxaliplatin plus irinotecan vs irinotecan as second-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients: a randomized-controlled open-label Phase II study.

Background: Limited second-line therapeutic options are available for metastasis pancreatic cancer (mPC). We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin plus irinotecan (IROX) in mPC patients. Methods: This is an open-label, Phase 2, randomized study of mPC patients (aged 18-75 years) who failed when using gemcitabine plus S-1 as first-line therapy. Block randomization with a block size of four was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) between October 2015 and December 2017 to receive either IROX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and irinotecan 160 mg/m2) or irinotecan monotherapy (irinotecan 180 mg/m2) until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was overall survival, and the secondary end points were progression-free survival, overall response rate, and adverse event rate. Results: A total of 74 patients were enrolled in this study, including 44 males and 30 females, with an average age of 61 years. The median overall survival was 10.2 and 6.7 months (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-1.2; P = 0.20) and the median progression-free survival was 5.1 and 2.3 months (adjusted HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6; P < 0.01) in the IROX group and irinotecan group, respectively. The overall response rates were 18.4% (7/38) in the IROX group and 5.5% (2/36) in the irinotecan group (P = 0.06). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34% (13/38) of patients in the IROX group and 19% (7/36) of patients in the irinotecan group (P = 0.15). Conclusions: IROX had no significant survival benefit over irinotecan monotherapy in our study. However, IROX reduced the risk of disease progression by 60%, with acceptable toxicity.

A phase 2 trial of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor: Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium BTCRC-LUN15-029.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy using a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) alone or in combination with chemotherapy is the standard of care for treatment-naive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver mutations for which targeted therapies have been approved. It is unknown whether continuing CPI treatment beyond disease progression results in improved outcomes. METHODS: Patients who experienced progressive disease (PD) after a clinical benefit from chemotherapy plus a CPI were enrolled. Patients received pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus next-line chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). Key secondary end points included the overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. The authors' hypothesis was that continuing pembrolizumab beyond progression would improve the median PFS to 6 months in comparison with a historical control of 3 months with single-agent chemotherapy alone. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and February 2020, 35 patients were enrolled. The patient and disease characteristics were as follows: 51.4% were male; 82.9% were current or former smokers; and 74.3%, 20%, and 5.7% had adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and NSCLC not otherwise specified, respectively. The null hypothesis that the median PFS would be 3 months was rejected (p < .05). The median PFS was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-8.0 months). The median OS was 24.5 months (95% CI, 15.6-30.9 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (60%), anemia (54.3%), and nausea (42.9%). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus next-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who experienced PD after a clinical benefit from a CPI was associated with statistically significant higher PFS in comparison with historical controls of single-agent chemotherapy alone.

PD-1-mAb Plus Regimen in the First and Second Lines of Advanced and Unresectable Biliary Tract Carcinoma: A Real-World, Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

Introduction: Advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) has a poor prognosis and few treatment options. We compared the efficacy of the PD-1 monoclonal antibody (PD-1-mAb) combined regimens with the standard chemotherapy in the first-line and second-line treatment of advanced BTC. Methods: We retrospectively assessed the patients with advanced BTC, who received treatment at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University and the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center. The patients were treated with PD-1-mAb combined regimens or standard chemotherapy at the first line or treated with PD-1-mAb combined regimens or systematic therapy at the second line. Further subgroup analyses were assessed to identify superior regimens. Results: This study included 210 patients. The first-line PD-1-mAb combination group (n = 83) achieved longer median PFS (mPFS) (7.3 vs 5.3 months, p=0.001) and median OS (mOS) (15.6 vs 11.4 months, p=0.002) than the first-line standard chemotherapy group (n=76). Similarly, the second-line PD-1-mAb combination group (n=50) yielded longer mPFS (6.1 vs 2.6 months, p<0.001) and mOS (11.7 vs 7.2 months, p=0.008) than the second-line systematic therapy group (n=51). Subgroup analyses showed that the PD-1-mAb combined with TKI group achieved better mPFS than the chemotherapy group whether in the first-line (HR = 0.468, p=0.005) or the second-line setting (HR = 0.45, p=0.009), but did not achieve superiority in mOS (both p>0.05). Compared with the chemotherapy group, the PD-1-mAb combined with chemotherapy group achieved longer mOS (HR = 0.53, p=0.023) in the first-line setting and longer mPFS in the second-line setting (HR = 0.54, p=0.044). Conclusion: The PD-1-mAb combination therapy is superior to the standard chemotherapy in advanced or unresectable BTC, whether as a first-line or second-line treatment. Among the combination therapy, both the PD-1-mAb combined with TKI and combined with standard chemotherapy were promising options for advanced BTC patients.

Real-life analysis of treatment approaches and the role of inflammatory markers on survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Advanced-stage biliary tract cancers (BTC) are rare malignancies with poor prognosis. There are few prospective trials, but several retrospective studies regarding treatment options. In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of systemic inflammatory parameters (SIP) and other possible independent factors that may affect survival and treatment approaches and to determine the benefit of later-line treatments in these patients. METHODS: A total of 284 patients, initially diagnosed with advanced stage or progressed after curative treatment of BTC, from different oncology centers in Turkey were included in this retrospective study. The prognostic significance of clinicopathological factors, SIPs and treatment options was analyzed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 13 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.1 months (95% CI:5.51-6.82), and the median overall survival (OS) time was 16.8 months (95% CI: 13.9-19.6). Treatment choice (p < .001 HR:0.70 CI95% 0.55-0.9), performance status (p < .001 HR:2.74 CI 95% 2.12-3.54) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (p = .02 HR:1.38 CI 95% 1.03-1.84) were independent prognostic factors for PFS. For OS, the independent prognostic indicators were determined as The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) (p < .001 HR:1.78 CI 95% 1.5-2.3), Systemic Immune-inflammation Index (SII) (p < .001 HR:0.51 CI95% 0.36-0.73) and stage at diagnosis (p = .002 HR:1.79 CI 95% 1.24-2.59). Furthermore, second and third line treatments significantly prolonged OS in advanced BTC (p < .001 HR:0.55 CI 95% 0.38-0.79; p = .007 HR:0.51 CI95% 0.31-0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: SII and NLR are useful prognostic factors and may be helpful in making treatment decisions. Additionally, second and later-line treatments in advanced BTC have a significant impact on survival under real-life conditions.

Comparison Between FOLFIRINOX and nal-IRI/FL as Second-line Treatment After Gemcitabine Plus Nab-paclitaxel for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The regimen of nanoliposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (Nal-IRI/FL) was approved in Japan as second-line chemotherapy after gemcitabine-based treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in 2020. We examined the difference in outcome between patients treated with second-line folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and those treated with nal-IRI/FL after first-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The outcomes of 34 patients with PDAC who received second-line FOLFIRINOX (n=21) or nal-IRI/FL (n=13) after GnP at our Department from January 2016 to June 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Patient backgrounds did not differ between the groups. Dose reduction was more frequently required for treatment with FOLFIRINOX than with nal-IRI/FL (86% vs. 46%, p=0.022). Pegfilgrastim and aprepitant were used more frequently in the FOLFIRINOX group (both p<0.01). Progression-free survival (5.9 vs. 8.3 months) and overall survival (9.1 vs. 11.2 months) did not differ significantly between the groups. The frequency of grade 3 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) or higher adverse events was similar between the groups. All-grade peripheral neuropathy was more common in the FOLFIRINOX group (100% vs. 77%, p=0.048). CONCLUSION: FOLFIRINOX and nal-IRI/FL as second-line therapy after GnP provided similar prognoses, although supportive treatment and dose reduction were more frequently required for FOLFIRINOX.

Clinical Outcomes of S-1 Monotherapy and Modified FOLFIRINOX Therapy after Gemcitabine plus Nab-paclitaxel Therapy in Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer.

Objective S-1 and modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) were often used as the second-line chemotherapies after failure of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) in unresectable pancreatic cancer (UPC) until nanoliposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin therapy was approved as an alternative in Japan in 2020. However, the clinical outcomes of S-1 and mFFX after GnP have scarcely been reported. Therefore, we retrospectively studied them. Methods We extracted the clinical data of 86 patients with UPC who received second-line chemotherapy after GnP between 2015 and 2020. Among the patients who had a good organ functions and no massive ascites, 41 patients treated with S-1 and 21 treated with mFFX were enrolled. Results Compared to S-1, mFFX tended to be used for younger patients with a good general condition (median age, 63 vs. 71 years, p<0.01; and performance status 0, 67% vs. 37%, p<0.05). The median progression-free and overall survival were similar between the S-1 (3.7 and 7.2 months, respectively) and mFFX (3.3 and 7.4 months, respectively) groups. The response rate in patients with measurable lesions was 4% (n=1/23) in the S-1 group and 17% (n=2/12) in the mFFX group. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 20% in the S-1 group and 57% (neutrophil count decreased in 43%) in the mFFX group (p<0.01). Conclusion S-1 and mFFX were both acceptable second-line chemotherapies after GnP therapy for UPC, although attention should be paid to myelosuppression during mFFX treatment. Further studies involving nanoliposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin therapy are necessary to facilitate the selection of the optimal regimen for each patient.

Nal-IRI/5-FU/LV versus modified FOLFIRINOX and FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer: A single center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The preferred regimen for unresectable pancreatic cancer following gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is not well-established. This study compared the efficacy of (ⅰ) liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) (nal-IRI/5-FU/LV) versus modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) and (ⅱ) nal-IRI/5-FU/LV versus FOLFIRI, respectively, and the safety of the three regimens each other, as second-line chemotherapies for unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center analysis of all patients who were administered nal-IRI/5-FU/LV, mFFX, or FOLFIRI from December 2014 to July 2021 as second-line chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) of all patients, excluding those with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Regarding safety, we assessed the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events of interest in all patients. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients (nal-IRI/5-FU/LV, n = 55; mFFX, n = 39; FOLFIRI, n = 43) were included. The median OS in the nal-IRI/5-FU/LV group, the mFFX group, and the FOLFIRI group was 7.4, 11.8, and 8.4 months, respectively. Compared with the nal-IRI/5-FU/LV group, the mFFX and FOLFIRI groups displayed a hazard ratio of 0.66 [95% confidence interval 0.40-1.08] and 0.87 [95% confidence interval 0.55-1.39], respectively. In the FOLFIRI group, the incidence of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events tended to be low among all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Given the trend toward longer OS in the mFFX group and the lower incidence of adverse events in the FOLFIRI group, both mFFX and FOLFIRI, as well as nal-IRI/5-FU/LV, can be treatment options for second-line chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

The Profile of MicroRNA Expression and Potential Role in the Regulation of Drug-Resistant Genes in Doxorubicin and Topotecan Resistant Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines.

Epithelial ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among all gynecological malignancies. The main reasons for high mortality are late diagnosis and development of resistance to chemotherapy. Resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs can result from altered expression of drug-resistance genes regulated by miRNA. The main goal of our study was to detect differences in miRNA expression levels in two doxorubicin (DOX)- and two topotecan (TOP)-resistant variants of the A2780 drug-sensitive ovarian cancer cell line by miRNA microarray. The next aim was to recognize miRNAs as factors responsible for the regulation of drug-resistance genes. We observed altered expression of 28 miRNA that may be related to drug resistance. The upregulation of miR-125b-5p and miR-935 and downregulation of miR-218-5p was observed in both DOX-resistant cell lines. In both TOP-resistant cell lines, we noted the overexpression of miR-99a-5p, miR-100-5p, miR-125b-5p, and miR-125b-2-3p and decreased expression of miR-551b-3p, miR-551b-5p, and miR-383-5p. Analysis of the targets suggested that expression of important drug-resistant genes such as the collagen type I alpha 2 chain (COL1A2), protein Tyrosine Phosphatase Receptor Type K (PTPRK), receptor tyrosine kinase-EPHA7, Roundabout Guidance Receptor 2 (ROBO2), myristoylated alanine-rich C-kinase substrate (MARCK), and the ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2 (ABCG2) can be regulated by miRNA.

Efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX as second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine-based therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a meta-analysis of the treatment effects of different second-line chemotherapy regimens compared with FOLFIRINOX (FOL [folinic acid], F [fluorouracil], IRIN [irinotecan], OX [oxaliplatin]) after failure of gemcitabine-based first-line therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This meta-analysis searched electronic databases, including Embase®, Medline, PubMed® and the Cochrane library, for eligible studies that reported the use of FOLFIRINOX and other drug regimens as second-line chemotherapy after failure of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Pooled analyses for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TRAEs) were undertaken. RESULTS: The analysis included six studies with a total of 858 patients. Compared with the three other second-line regimens, FOLFIRINOX had a significantly longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52, 0.89) and OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59, 0.86); and a significantly better ORR (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23, 0.80) and DCR (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58, 0.88). However, grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequently reported in patients administered FOLFIRINOX compared with the other three regimens. CONCLUSION: FOLFIRINOX is recommended as a second-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer that have failed on gemcitabine-based first-line therapy.Research Registry number: reviewregistry1300.