4.7 Article

The impact of age, performance status and comorbidities on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine effectiveness in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12214-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the impact of risk factors such as performance status and comorbidities on the effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine treatment in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The results showed that patients without risk factors had higher overall survival, and age, performance status, and comorbidities were prognostic factors.
Few studies have evaluated the impact of risk factors such as performance status (PS) and comorbidities on overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). We investigated the influence of comorbidity, PS and age on nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (NabGem) effectiveness profile in naive patients with mPC. 153 patients with mPC treated with NabGem upfront was divided in three groups (score 0 to 3) based on the absence or the presence of one or more risk factors among: age >= 70 years, PS 1 and comorbidities and the clinical outcomes was compared. Fifty-five patients were elderly (>= 70 years), 80 patients have PS 1, whereas the other have PS 0. Patients with no risk factors (score 0) had an overall survival higher (20 months) than patients with one or two risk factors (score 1-2) (OS 11 months) and with three risk factors (score 3) (OS 8 months) (p < 0.01). The difference in OS was also statistically significant in patients without comorbidities (OS 15 months) compared to those with >= 1 comorbidity (OS 10 months) (p < 0.001). NabGem chemotherapy represent an effective treatment in naive patients. Age, PS, and comorbidities were prognostic factors in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available