Efficacy and toxicity comparison of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 and nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer

• 作者: Fan Yue Guo Xi Ji Yuan Jin Dayong Lou Wenhui Wang Dansong Wu Lili Xu Yaolin Zhou Yuhong Zhuang Rongyuan
• 来源期刊: 胰腺病学杂志（英文）
• 关键词: Chemotherapy Gemcitabine Nab-paclitaxel Pancreatic cancer S-1
• 年，卷（期）: 2020,（1）
• 所属期刊栏目: Original Article
• 页码范围: 35-41
• 页数: 7页
• 语种: 中文
• DOI: 10.1097/JP9.0000000000000038

摘要

To compare efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) with nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer, we conducted a retrospective analysis by reviewing medical records of 53 metastatic pancreatic cancer patients in our institution. They received either AG (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8) or AS (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8 and S-1 80-120 mg on days 1-14) chemotherapy. We found that AS had higher objective response rate (36% vs 21.4%), better disease control rate (84% vs 75%), prolonged time to progression (TTP, 7.1 vs 5 months), and improved overall survival (OS, 15.3 vs 12 months) when compared with AG. In Cox proportional hazards model, sex was significantly associated with TTP ( P value=.031) and metastatic sites plus treatment after progression were significantly associated with OS ( P value=.028 and .01, respectively). The incidence rate of chemotherapy-related adverse events was similar in both groups. Neutropenia (50% and 60%, all grade; 21.4% and 36%, grade 3 or 4, in AG and AS group) and sensory neuropathy (21.4% and 24%, all grade; 3.6% and 4%, grade 3 or 4, in AG and AS group) were the most common hematologic and non-hematologic toxicity. Thus, we believed that AS is a reasonable and convenient alternative for patients treated with AG as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

作者信息

序号	姓名	单位	发文数	被引次数	H指数	G指数
1	Guo Xi		1	0	0.0	0.0
2	Xu Yaolin		1	0	0.0	0.0
3	Ji Yuan		1	0	0.0	0.0
4	Fan Yue		1	0	0.0	0.0
5	Wang Dansong		1	0	0.0	0.0
6	Jin Dayong		1	0	0.0	0.0
7	Zhuang Rongyuan		1	0	0.0	0.0
8	Wu Lili		1	0	0.0	0.0
9	Lou Wenhui		1	0	0.0	0.0
10	Zhou Yuhong		1	0	0.0	0.0