4.4 Article

Interstitial lung disease in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel combination therapy: a retrospective analysis

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 517-523

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-019-03983-3

关键词

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; Chemotherapy; Interstitial lung disease; Gemcitabine; Nab-paclitaxel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeGemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP) combination therapy is a standard regimen for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) worldwide; however, concerns regarding the unexpectedly high incidence of interstitial lung disease (ILD) have emerged. We investigated the incidence and predictive factors of ILD in PDAC patients who were treated with GnP combination therapy.MethodsThirty-seven patients treated with GnP therapy as either 1st or 2nd line treatment were included, among whom seven developed ILD (18.9%). The clinical characteristics (age, etc.) were compared between patients with and without ILD. The diagnostic yield of the markers to predict the presence of ILD was calculated. The clinical course of the seven patients with ILD was summarized. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.ResultsThe median age was higher in patients with ILD (73.0 vs. 65.0 years old, p=0.03), while no differences were observed in the other clinical characteristics. Among the three investigated markers, SP-D showed the best diagnostic yield (AUC=0.94) for diagnosing ILD. Though one patient required steroid therapy and the discontinuation of GnP therapy, all patients could undergo subsequent treatment. In the survival analysis, the median survival time of PDAC patients with ILD was comparable to that of patients without ILD (25.1 vs. 24.5 months, p=0.98).ConclusionILD was observed in 18.9% of PDAC patients treated with GnP therapy. With appropriate management, no prognostic influence was observed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据