4.7 Article

Final analysis of a phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 114, 期 7, 页码 737-743

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.45

关键词

metastatic pancreatic cancer; locally advanced pancreatic cancer; FOLFIRINOX

类别

资金

  1. Koenigsberg family
  2. Yale Cancer Center
  3. US National Cancer Institute [P30CA016359]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Modifications of FOLFIRINOX are widely used despite the absence of prospective data validating efficacy in metastatic disease (metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC)) or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We conducted a multicentre phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer to assess the impact of dose attenuation in MPC and efficacy in LAPC. Methods: Patients with untreated MPC or LAPC received modified FOLFIRINOX (irinotecan and bolus 5-fluorouracil reduced by 25%). Adverse events (AEs) were compared with full-dose FOLFIRINOX. Response rate (RR), median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were determined. Results: In total, 31 and 44 patients with LAPC and MPC were enrolled, respectively. In MPC, efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX was comparable with FOLFIRINOX with RR 35.1%, OS 10.2 months (95% CI 7.65-14.32) and PFS 6.1 months (95% CI 5.19-8.31). In LAPC, efficacy was notable with RR 17.2%, resection rate 41.9%, PFS 17.8 months (95% CI 11.0-23.9) and OS 26.6 months (95% CI 16.7, NA). Neutropenia (P<0.0001), vomiting (P<0.001) and fatigue (P = 0.01) were significantly decreased. [F-18]-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging response did not correlate with PFS or OS. Conclusions: In this first prospective study of modified FOLFIRINOX in MPC and LAPC, we observed decreased AEs compared with historical control patients. In MPC, the efficacy appears comparable with FOLFIRINOX. In LAPC, PFS and OS were prolonged and support the continued use of FOLFIRINOX in this setting.

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

4.7
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