Research ArticleClinical Studies

Feasibility of Combination Therapy with Nab-paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Patients with Recurrent Pancreatic Cancer

HIROMICHI KAWAIDA, HIROSHI KONO, HIDETAKE AMEMIYA, RYOU SAITOU, ATSUSHI YAMAMOTO, NAOHIRO HOSOMURA, MITSUAKI WATANABE, AYAKO KIMURA, SHINJI FURUYA, HIROKI SHIMIZU, HIDENORI AKAIKE, YOSHIHIKO KAWAGUCHI, MAKOTO SUDO, JUN ITAKURA, HIROSHI HAYAKAWA, HIROKO SHINDO, EI TAKAHASHI, SHINICHI TAKANO, MITSUHARU FUKASAWA, SHINTARO ICHIKAWA, HIDEKI FUJII and DAISUKE ICHIKAWA
Anticancer Research November 2018, 38 (11) 6537-6542; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13019

Abstract

Background/Aim: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P+Gem) is one of most reliable and effective regimens for borderline or unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). However, the feasibility and clinical benefits of this regimen have never been evaluated for patients with recurrent PC after pancreatectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P+Gem) for patients with recurrent PC. Patients and Methods: Twenty-two patients with recurrent PC received an intravenous infusion of nab-P (125 mg/m2) and Gem (1,000 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle. The primary end-point of this study was completion of the 4 cycles. The secondary end-points were the safety, efficacy, and disease control rate. Results: The treatment completion rate of the 4 cycles was 90.9%. The objective response rate was 13.6% and the disease control rate was 63.6%. The median progression-free survival was 7.2 months. The most common grade 3 or higher hematological toxicity was neutropenia (72.7%). There was no treatment-related death. Furthermore, the chemotherapeutic effects varied with the time of recurrence. Conclusion: Combination nab-P+Gem therapy was well-tolerated and effective in patients with recurrent PC.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the seventh most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide (1) and surgical resection is the only potential cure. However, even when curative surgery is performed, the prognosis after pancreatic surgery is poor (2). Currently, adjuvant chemotherapy is considered to be the standard strategy for patients with macroscopically-resected PC, based on several randomized controlled studies (2-4). However, most patients with relatively advanced disease experience recurrence after macroscopically curative surgical resection with post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy (5-8), and the 5-year survival rate is 12-19% (9-11). Therefore, an optimal treatment for recurrent disease is required.

Recently, the efficacy of several chemotherapeutic regimens has been demonstrated for borderline or unresectable PC (12, 13). Among them, nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P+Gem) is one of most reliable and effective regimens (12, 13). However, the feasibility and clinical benefits of this intensive regimen have never been fully evaluated for patients with recurrent PC in weak physical condition after pancreatectomy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of combination nab-P +Gem therapy in patients with recurrent PC.

Patients and Methods

Patients. Twenty-two patients with recurrent PC after radical surgery were treated at our hospital from January 2016 to November 2017. The main treatment regimen of adjuvant chemotherapy was orally administered S-1 (TS-1, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Tokyo, Japan), 40 mg, 50 mg or 60 mg according to body-surface area twice a day for 28 days followed by a 14-day rest (1 cycle) for up to 4 cycles (4), while 2 patients received intravenous gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (one cycle) for up to 6 cycles because of allergic reactions for TS-1. One patient did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy because he developed recurrence before starting adjuvant chemotherapy.

Twenty-one patients who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy were classified into the following three groups according to the time of recurrence: the early group (recurrence during adjuvant chemotherapy), the intermediate group (recurrence within 6 months after adjuvant chemotherapy), or the late group (recurrence after 6 months from completion after chemotherapy). The patients were also divided into two groups according to history of gemcitabine usage.

The safety and efficacy of the nab-P+Gem regimen were retrospectively analyzed for all patients and each patient group separately.

Tumor markers [carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and Duke pancreatic monoclonal antigen type 2 (DuPAN-2)] were measured every 4 weeks and computed tomography (CT) was performed every three months after surgery. Recurrence of PC was defined as appearance of tumors on CT and/or successive increases of tumor markers 2 times above the normal level.

The criteria for patient treatment were performance status (PS) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) <3 and adequate hematological, hepatic, renal, cardiac, and respiratory function.

Treatment. Twenty-two patients were administered a 30-min intravenous infusion of nab-P (125 mg/m2) followed by a 30-min intravenous infusion of Gem (1,000 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Antiemetic prophylaxis with 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone was used for all patients.

If patients developed grade 4 hematological toxicities or grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), the dosage of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine was reduced. The reduced dose was 100 mg/m2 for nab-paclitaxel and 800 mg/m2 for gemcitabine. Treatment continued until disease progression or an unacceptable level of adverse events.

Study evaluations. Objective responses of target lesions were evaluated with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST ver.1.1) criteria. Radiological response was assessed by investigators and a radiologist from the institution. Tumor marker response was defined as a decrease of greater than 50% from baseline for response and an increase of greater than 20% from baseline for progression (14-17). Toxicity was graded according to the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) v4.0. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time elapsed from treatment start to the first progression of the cancer.

The primary end-point of this study was completion of the 4 cycles of combination nab-P+Gem therapy by patients with recurrent PC. The secondary end-points of this study were the safety, efficacy, and disease control rate (DCR). DCR was defined as the proportion of patients with complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) for 4 weeks or longer. All patients gave informed consent for treatment.

Statistical analysis. PFS from the start of nab-P+G was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Ethics approval and consent to participate. This study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the University of Yamanashi. Clinical trial registration number: UMIN ID: 000031203.

Informed consent statement. Patients were not required to give informed consent to the study because the analysis used anonymous clinical data that were obtained after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent.

View this table:
Table I.

Clinical characteristics of patients.

View this table:
Table II.

Site of recurrences.

Results

Patient characteristics and treatment details. Clinical characteristics of patients are summarized in Table I. The median age was 68.0 years. Pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 11 patients, distal pancreatectomy in 9 patients, and total pancreatectomy in 2 patients. Three patients had stage IV disease; all of them had localized metastasis to para-aortic lymph nodes and macroscopically curative surgery was possible. The sites of recurrence are shown in Table II. Eight patients had recurrence in the liver, 5 patients had recurrence in the lung, and 6 patients presented with local recurrence. Among all patients, 124 treatment cycles were administered (median=5.6 cycles, range=2-11). The main causes of treatment discontinuation were disease progression and toxicity. There were 8 patients who received the reduced dosage of nab-P+Gem (36.4%).

View this table:
Table III.

Summary of grade 2 (G2), G3 or G4 adverse events.

View this table:
Table IV.

Efficiency estimates of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine.

View this table:
Table V.

Relationship between recurrence time, history of gemcitabine use, and DCR.

Safety. The treatment-related CTC adverse events are presented in Table III. Hemotological and non-hematological grade 3 or higher toxicity occurred in 19 patients (86.4%). The most common grade 3 or higher hematological toxicities were neutropenia (16 patients, 72.7%) and leukopenia (9 patients, 40.9%). However, no patients were treated with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Regarding non-hematological toxicities, grade 3 fatigue, anorexia, and PSN were observed in one patient each. The most frequent toxicity was grade 2 alopecia (17 patients, 77.3%), followed by PSN in 10 patients (45.5%, including grade 3 in 1 patient as described above).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Progression-free survival (PFS). The median-PFS was 7.2 months based on the Kaplan–Meier curve.

Dose reduction was required for 8 patients (36.4%), and doses were skipped for 19 patients (86.4%), mainly because of neutropenia. However, there was no treatment-related death. Two patients discontinued treatment at the end of 2 cycles due to progressive disease and fatigue, respectively. Twenty patients received more than 4 cycles of treatment, and the treatment completion rate was 90.9% (Table IV).

Efficacy. Among 22 patients, 3 demonstrated PR (13.6%), and 11 demonstrated SD (50.0%), while none had CR. Three patients presented an objective response (CR+PR 3/22, 13.6%) and the DCR (CR+PR+SD) was 63.6% (PR+SD 14/22) (Table IV). The median PFS was 7.2 months (Figure 1).

Regarding recurrence time, there were 12, 5, and 4 patients in the early, intermediate and late groups, respectively. The DCRs were 50%, 80%, and 100%, respectively, which slightly increased with the postoperative time. On the other hand, the DCR of patients with a history of gemcitabine use as adjuvant chemotherapy was 55.6%, which was slightly lower than the 69.2% of gemcitabine-naïve patients. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (p=0.535) (Table V).

Discussion

Since the effects of gemcitabine were first reported (12), many chemotherapy regimens have been evaluated for treatment of patients with PC. The Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial (MPACT) demonstrated significant tumor shrinkage and survival benefits for nab-P+Gem for both primary pancreatic and metastatic lesions (13). However, many clinical trials are performed on unresectable or borderline PC, and the efficacy of nab-P+Gem in patients with recurrent PC has not been investigated.

Following surgical resection of the pancreas, especially pancreaticoduodenectomy, most patients have significant weight loss and malnutrition due to anorexia and malabsorption (18, 19). In addition, many patients undergoing pancreatectomy have diabetes and diet therapy is necessary. However, the efficacy of aggressive chemotherapeutic treatment correlates with the performance and nutritional status of patients (20-22). Therefore, the feasibility and clinical impact of combination nab-P+Gem therapy were examined in patients with recurrent PC after pancreatectomy.

For this study, 4 cycles of combination nab-P+Gem therapy were administered in patients with recurrent PC according to previous studies (13, 23). The treatment completion rate was 90.9%, even after aggressive pancreatic surgery. Furthermore, the safety and efficacy of nab-P+Gem in patients with recurrent PC after pancreatectomy were confirmed. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, alopecia, and PSN. Our results were similar with past study results using nab-P+Gem, including MPACT (13, 24-31).

In this study, the DCR was 63.6% and the PFS was 7.2 months, which are higher than those in previous studies on nab-P+Gem (13, 24-31). One possible explanation for this is that all patients were observed post-operatively and recurrence was diagnosed earlier. The suitability of the dosing regimen was also similar with that of MPACT, and 68.2% of patients did not require dose reduction.

Treatment results for PC are improving due to advances in surgical procedures, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (32-36) and adjuvant chemotherapy (2-4). However, PC recurs in many patients, and the prognosis after pancreatic surgery is still poor (2-4, 11). It may be difficult to select the most effective treatment in recurrent cases because the optimal treatment remains controversial.

Among recent clinical trials performed with patients with unresectable PC, irinotecan, oxaliplatin and leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX) was found to be one of the most effective treatments (37, 38), but it is not applicable for patients older than 75 years old (38). Nevertheless, herein, 4 patients older than 75 years old were included. Furthermore, some reports suggest that the nab-P+Gem regimen yields a better clinical outcome and fewer toxicities than FOLFIRINOX for patients with pancreatic cancer (39, 40). Therefore, nab-P+Gem may be a safe and effective regimen even for patients after aggressive pancreatic surgery.

Of note, the chemotherapeutic effects in this study varied with the time of recurrence; later recurrence led to a better response. Thus, intense chemotherapeutic treatment for the late recurrent group, such as FOLFIRINOX, is not needed because nab-P+Gem may be sufficient. Moreover, there was no change in the chemotherapeutic effect regardless of past gemcitabine use.

The limitation of the present study is associated with the small number of patients, thus a larger multicenter study is recommended. Furthermore, it is necessary to select patients who can expect the therapeutic effect of nab-P+Gem.

These results suggest nab-P+Gem to be a safe and efficacious chemotherapeutic option for patients with recurrent PC. Further studies using a larger number of patients and prospective study design are recommended in the future.

Conclusion

Nab-P+Gem may be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with recurrent PC or borderline and unresectable PC. This treatment may improve the prognosis of patients with recurrent PC.

  • Received September 5, 2018.
  • Revision received September 22, 2018.
  • Accepted September 28, 2018.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Torre LA,
    2. Bray F,
    3. Siegel RL,
    4. Ferlay J,
    5. Lortet-Tieulent J,
    6. Jemal A
    : Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2): 87-108, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Oettle H,
    2. Post S,
    3. Neuhaus P,
    4. Gellert K,
    5. Langrehr J,
    6. Ridwelski K,
    7. Schramm H,
    8. Fahlke J,
    9. Zuelke C,
    10. Burkart C,
    11. Gutberlet K,
    12. Kettner E,
    13. Schmalenberg H,
    14. Weigang-Koehler K,
    15. Bechstein WO,
    16. Niedergethmann M,
    17. Schmidt-Wolf I,
    18. Roll L,
    19. Doerken B,
    20. Riess H
    : Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 297(3): 267-277, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Neoptolemos JP,
    2. Stocken DD,
    3. Bassi C,
    4. Ghaneh P,
    5. Cunningham D,
    6. Goldstein D,
    7. Padbury R,
    8. Moore MJ,
    9. Gallinger S,
    10. Mariette C,
    11. Wente MN,
    12. Izbicki JR,
    13. Friess H,
    14. Lerch MM,
    15. Dervenis C,
    16. Oláh A,
    17. Butturini G,
    18. Doi R,
    19. Lind PA,
    20. Smith D,
    21. Valle JW,
    22. Palmer DH,
    23. Buckels JA,
    24. Thompson J,
    25. McKay CJ,
    26. Rawcliffe CL,
    27. Büchler MW
    : European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer. Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 304(10): 1073-1081, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Uesaka K,
    2. Boku N,
    3. Fukutomi A,
    4. Okamura Y,
    5. Konishi M,
    6. Matsumoto I,
    7. Kaneoka Y,
    8. Shimizu Y,
    9. Nakamori S,
    10. Sakamoto H,
    11. Morinaga S,
    12. Kainuma O,
    13. Imai K,
    14. Sata N,
    15. Hishinuma S,
    16. Ojima H,
    17. Yamaguchi R,
    18. Hirano S,
    19. Sudo T,
    20. Ohashi Y
    : JASPAC 01 Study Group. Adjuvant chemotherapy of S-1 versus gemcitabine for resected pancreatic cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (JASPAC 01). Lancet 388(10041): 248-257, 2016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Shima Y,
    2. Okabayashi T,
    3. Kozuki A,
    4. Sumiyoshi T,
    5. Tokumaru T,
    6. Saisaka Y,
    7. Date K,
    8. Iwata J
    : Completion pancreatectomy for recurrent pancreatic cancer in the remnant pancreas: report of six cases and a review of the literature. Langenbecks Arch Surg 400(8): 973-978, 2015.
    OpenUrl
    1. Suzuki S,
    2. Furukawa T,
    3. Oshima N,
    4. Izumo W,
    5. Shimizu K,
    6. Yamamoto M
    : Original Scientific Reports: Clinicopathological findings of remnant pancreatic cancers in survivors following curative resections of pancreatic cancers. World J Surg 40(4): 974-981, 2016.
    OpenUrl
    1. Miyazaki M,
    2. Yoshitomi H,
    3. Shimizu H,
    4. Ohtsuka M,
    5. Yoshidome H,
    6. Furukawa K,
    7. Takayasiki T,
    8. Kuboki S,
    9. Okamura D,
    10. Suzuki D,
    11. Nakajima M
    : Repeat pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal cancer recurrence in the remnant pancreas after initial pancreatectomy: is it worthwhile? Surgery 155(1): 58-66, 2014.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Hashimoto D,
    2. Chikamoto A,
    3. Ohmuraya M,
    4. Sakata K,
    5. Miyake K,
    6. Kuroki H,
    7. Watanabe M,
    8. Beppu T,
    9. Hirota M,
    10. Baba H
    : Pancreatic cancer in the remnant pancreas following primary pancreatic resection. Surg Today 44(7): 1313-1320, 2014.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Ferrone CR,
    2. Pieretti-Vanmarcke R,
    3. Bloom JP,
    4. Zheng H,
    5. Szymonifka J,
    6. Wargo JA,
    7. Thayer SP,
    8. Lauwers GY,
    9. Deshpande V,
    10. Mino-Kenudson M,
    11. Fernández-del Castillo C,
    12. Lillemoe KD,
    13. Warshaw AL
    : Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma:long-term survival does not equal cure. Surgery 152: S43-49, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ferrone CR,
    2. Brennan MF,
    3. Gonen M,
    4. Coit DG,
    5. Fong Y,
    6. Chung S,
    7. Tang L,
    8. Klimstra D,
    9. Allen PJ
    : Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the actual 5-year survivors. J Gastrointest Surg 12(4): 701-706, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Winter JM,
    2. Cameron JL,
    3. Campbell KA,
    4. Arnold MA,
    5. Chang DC,
    6. Coleman J,
    7. Hodgin MB,
    8. Sauter PK,
    9. Hruban RH,
    10. Riall TS,
    11. Schulick RD,
    12. Choti MA,
    13. Lillemoe KD,
    14. Yeo CJ
    : 1423 pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Surg 10(9): 1199-1210, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Burris HA 3rd.,
    2. Moore MJ,
    3. Andersen J,
    4. Green MR,
    5. Rothenberg ML,
    6. Modiano MR,
    7. Cripps MC,
    8. Portenoy RK,
    9. Storniolo AM,
    10. Tarassoff P,
    11. Nelson R,
    12. Dorr FA,
    13. Stephens CD,
    14. Von Hoff DD
    : Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15(6): 2403-2413, 1997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Von Hoff DD,
    2. Ervin T,
    3. Arena FP,
    4. Chiorean EG,
    5. Infante J,
    6. Moore M,
    7. Seay T,
    8. Tjulandin SA,
    9. Ma WW,
    10. Saleh MN,
    11. Harris M,
    12. Reni M,
    13. Dowden S,
    14. Laheru D,
    15. Bahary N,
    16. Ramanathan RK,
    17. Tabernero J,
    18. Hidalgo M,
    19. Goldstein D,
    20. Van Cutsem E,
    21. Wei X,
    22. Iglesias J,
    23. Renschler MF
    : Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med 369(18): 1691-1703, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Boeck S,
    2. Stieber P,
    3. Holdenrieder S,
    4. Wilkowski R,
    5. Heinemann V
    : Prognostic and therapeutic significance of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 as tumor marker in patients with pancreatic cancer. Oncology 70(4): 255-264, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Katz MH,
    2. Varadhachary GR,
    3. Fleming JB,
    4. Wolff RA,
    5. Lee JE,
    6. Pisters PW,
    7. Vauthey JN,
    8. Abdalla EK,
    9. Sun CC,
    10. Wang H,
    11. Crane CH,
    12. Lee JH,
    13. Tamm EP,
    14. Abbruzzese JL,
    15. Evans DB
    : Serum CA 19-9 as a marker of resectability and survival in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Ann Surg Oncol 17(7): 1794-1801, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ballehaninna UK,
    2. Chamberlain RS
    : The clinical utility of serum CA 19-9 in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An evidence based appraisal. J Gastrointest Oncol 3: 105-119, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Bauer TM,
    2. El-Rayes BF,
    3. Li X,
    4. Hammad N,
    5. Philip PA,
    6. Shields AF,
    7. Zalupski MM,
    8. Bekaii-Saab T
    : Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 is a prognostic and predictive biomarker in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who receive gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy: a pooled analysis of 6 prospective trials. Cancer 119: 285-292, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Richter E,
    2. Denecke A,
    3. Klapdor S,
    4. Klapdor R
    : Parenteral nutrition support for patients with pancreatic cancer – improvement of the nutritional status and the therapeutic outcome. Anticancer Res 32(5): 2111-2118, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Zhu XH,
    2. Wu YF,
    3. Qiu YD,
    4. Jiang CP,
    5. Ding YT
    : Effect of early enteral combined with parenteral nutrition in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: World J Gastroenterol 19(35): 5889-5896, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Ockenga J,
    2. Valentini L
    : Review article: anorexia and cachexia in gastrointestinal cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 22(7): 583-594, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Bossola M,
    2. Pacelli F,
    3. Tortorelli A,
    4. Doglietto GB
    : Cancer cachexia: it's time for more clinical trials. Ann Surg 14: 276-285, 2007.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Howard L,
    2. Ashley C
    : Nutrition in the perioperative patient. Annu Rev Nutr 23: 263-282, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Von Hoff DD,
    2. Ramanathan RK,
    3. Borad MJ,
    4. Laheru DA,
    5. Smith LS,
    6. Wood TE,
    7. Korn RL,
    8. Desai N,
    9. Trieu V,
    10. Iglesias JL,
    11. Zhang H,
    12. Soon-Shiong P,
    13. Shi T,
    14. Rajeshkumar NV,
    15. Maitra A,
    16. Hidalgo M
    : Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is an active regimen in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Clin Oncol 29(34): 4548-4554, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Vogel A,
    2. Römmler-Zehrer J,
    3. Li JS,
    4. McGovern D,
    5. Romano A,
    6. Stahl M
    : Efficacy and safety profile of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated to disease progression: a subanalysis from a phase 3 trial (MPACT). BMC Cancer 16(1): 817, 2016.
    OpenUrl
    1. Goldstein D,
    2. El-Maraghi RH,
    3. Hammel P,
    4. Heinemann V,
    5. Kunzmann V,
    6. Sastre J,
    7. Scheithauer W,
    8. Siena S,
    9. Tabernero J,
    10. Teixeira L,
    11. Tortora G,
    12. Van Laethem JL,
    13. Young R,
    14. Penenberg DN,
    15. Lu B,
    16. Romano A,
    17. Von Hoff DD
    : nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: long-term survival from a phase III trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 107(2): dju413, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tehfe M,
    2. Dowden S,
    3. Kennecke H,
    4. El-Maraghi R,
    5. Lesperance B,
    6. Couture F,
    7. Letourneau R,
    8. Liu H,
    9. Romano A
    : nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabinein patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Canadian subgroup analysis of the phase 3 MPACT trial. Adv Ther 33(5): 747-759, 2016.
    OpenUrl
    1. Ueno H,
    2. Ikeda M,
    3. Ueno M,
    4. Mizuno N,
    5. Ioka T,
    6. Omuro Y,
    7. Nakajima TE,
    8. Furuse J
    : Phase I/II study of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for chemotherapy-naïve Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77(3): 595-603, 2016.
    OpenUrl
    1. Kunzmann V,
    2. Ramanathan RK,
    3. Goldstein D,
    4. Liu H,
    5. Ferrara S,
    6. Lu B,
    7. Renschler MF,
    8. Von Hoff DD
    : Tumor reduction in primary and metastatic pancreatic cancer lesions with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine: An exploratory analysis from a phase 3 study. Pancreas 46(2): 203-208, 2017.
    OpenUrl
    1. De Vita F,
    2. Ventriglia J,
    3. Febbraro A,
    4. Laterza MM,
    5. Fabozzi A,
    6. Savastano B,
    7. Petrillo A,
    8. Diana A,
    9. Giordano G,
    10. Troiani T,
    11. Conzo G,
    12. Galizia G,
    13. Ciardiello F,
    14. Orditura M
    : NAB-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC): from clinical trials to clinical practice. BMC Cancer 16(1): 709, 2016.
    OpenUrl
    1. Ottaiano A,
    2. Capozzi M,
    3. DE Divitiis C,
    4. VON Arx C,
    5. DI Girolamo E,
    6. Nasti G,
    7. Cavalcanti E,
    8. Tatangelo F,
    9. Romano G,
    10. Avallone A,
    11. Tafuto S
    : Nab-paclitaxel and in advanced pancreatic cancer: The one-year experience of the national cancer institute of Naples. Anticancer Res 37(4): 1975-1978, 2017.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Peterson SL,
    2. Husnain M,
    3. Pollack T,
    4. Pimentel A,
    5. Loaiza-Bonilla A,
    6. Westendorf-Overley C,
    7. Ratermann K,
    8. Anthony L,
    9. Desimone P,
    10. Goel G,
    11. Kudrimoti M,
    12. Dineen S,
    13. Tzeng CD,
    14. Hosein PJ
    : Neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in borderline resectable or locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients who are ineligible for FOLFIRINOX. Anticancer Res 38(7): 4035-4039, 2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Rose JB,
    2. Rocha FG,
    3. Alseidi A,
    4. Biehl T,
    5. Moonka R,
    6. Ryan JA,
    7. Lin B,
    8. Picozzi V,
    9. Helton S
    : Extended neoadjuvant chemotherapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer demonstrates promising postoperative outcomes and survival. Ann Surg Oncol 21(5): 1530-1537, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Petrelli F,
    2. Coinu A,
    3. Borgonovo K,
    4. Cabiddu M,
    5. Ghilardi M,
    6. Lonati V,
    7. Aitini E,
    8. Barni S
    : Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Carcinomi dell'Apparato Digerente (GISCAD). FOLFIRINOX-based neoadjuvant therapy in borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analytical review of published studies. Pancreas 44(4): 515-521, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Ielpo B,
    2. Duran H,
    3. Diaz E,
    4. Fabra I,
    5. Caruso R,
    6. Ferri V,
    7. Malavé L,
    8. Hidalgo M,
    9. Alvarez R,
    10. Plaza C,
    11. Quijano Y,
    12. Vicente E
    : Preoperative treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is a safe and effective chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 42(9): 1394-1400, 2016.
    OpenUrl
    1. Dadi N,
    2. Stanley M,
    3. Shahda S,
    4. O'Neil BH,
    5. Sehdev A
    : Impact of nab-paclitaxel-based second-line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res 37(10): 5533-5539, 2017.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Kokkali S,
    2. Tripodaki ES,
    3. Drizou M,
    4. Stefanou D,
    5. Magou E,
    6. Zylis D,
    7. Kapiris M,
    8. Nasi D,
    9. Georganta C,
    10. Ardavanis A
    : Biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. In Vivo 32(3): 653-657, 2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Vaccaro V,
    2. Sperduti I,
    3. Milella M
    : FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 365(8): 768-769, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Conroy T,
    2. Desseigne F,
    3. Ychou M,
    4. Bouché O,
    5. Guimbaud R,
    6. Bécouarn Y,
    7. Adenis A,
    8. Raoul JL,
    9. Gourgou-Bourgade S,
    10. de la Fouchardière C,
    11. Bennouna J,
    12. Bachet JB,
    13. Khemissa-Akouz F,
    14. Péré-Vergé D,
    15. Delbaldo C,
    16. Assenat E,
    17. Chauffert B,
    18. Michel P,
    19. Montoto-Grillot C,
    20. Ducreux M,
    21. Groupe Tumeurs Digestives of Unicancer and PRODIGE Intergroup
    : FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 364(19): 1817-1825,2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Muranaka T,
    2. Kuwatani M,
    3. Komatsu Y,
    4. Sawada K,
    5. Nakatsumi H,
    6. Kawamoto Y,
    7. Yuki S,
    8. Kubota Y,
    9. Kubo K,
    10. Kawahata S,
    11. Kawakubo K,
    12. Kawakami H,
    13. Sakamoto N
    : Comparison of efficacy and toxicity of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel in unresectable pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol 8(3): 566-571, 2017.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Braiteh F,
    2. Patel MB,
    3. Parisi M,
    4. Ni Q,
    5. Park S,
    6. Faria C
    : Comparative effectiveness and resource utilization of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a US community setting. Cancer Manag Res 9: 141-148, 2017.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Reprints and Permissions
Feasibility of Combination Therapy with Nab-paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Patients with Recurrent Pancreatic Cancer
HIROMICHI KAWAIDA, HIROSHI KONO, HIDETAKE AMEMIYA, RYOU SAITOU, ATSUSHI YAMAMOTO, NAOHIRO HOSOMURA, MITSUAKI WATANABE, AYAKO KIMURA, SHINJI FURUYA, HIROKI SHIMIZU, HIDENORI AKAIKE, YOSHIHIKO KAWAGUCHI, MAKOTO SUDO, JUN ITAKURA, HIROSHI HAYAKAWA, HIROKO SHINDO, EI TAKAHASHI, SHINICHI TAKANO, MITSUHARU FUKASAWA, SHINTARO ICHIKAWA, HIDEKI FUJII, DAISUKE ICHIKAWA
Anticancer Research Nov 2018, 38 (11) 6537-6542; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13019
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords