3.9 Article

Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL CANCER
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 103-109

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12029-016-9902-9

Keywords

Quality of life; nab-paclitaxel; Gemcitabine; Metastatic pancreatic cancer; Chemotherapy

Funding

  1. Celgene Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Due to its clinical course and often-late detection, many patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) experience poor quality of life (QoL). This pilot project assessed real-world QoL in patients with mPC at different stages of treatment. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in the following groups of patients with mPC: before initiation of firstline (1L) chemotherapy (no treatment); with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) upon receipt of >= 3 cycles of 1L nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine PR or SD); and with disease progression during >= 1L chemotherapy and not currently receiving nab-paclitaxel (>= 1L PD). Eligible participants completed three QoL instruments, EORTC QLQ-C30, the pancreatic cancer module of EORTC QLQ-PAN26, and the EQ-5D, during their clinical visits at 14 clinics across the USA. Results Demographic characteristics were similar among groups (no treatment, n = 29; nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine PR or SD, n = 26; = 1L PD, n = 17). Patients in the nabpaclitaxel plus gemcitabine PR or SD group had lower mean pain scores by EORTC-QLQ-C30 (27.6 vs 47.1; P = 0.02) and lower mean pancreatic pain scores by EORTC-QLQ-PAN26 (27.9 vs 45.4; P = 0.02) compared with the no treatment group. The groups did not differ significantly in QoL as measured by the EQ-5D. Conclusions Patients who experienced PR or SD with 1L nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine had improved general and pancreatic pain scores and no clinically meaningful deterioration in QoL compared with patients who had not yet initiated chemotherapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available