4.6 Article

Duration of therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Does it matter?

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 13, 页码 4572-4580

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3081

关键词

chemotherapy; duration of chemotherapy; National Cancer Database; pancreatic cancer; radiotherapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Evidence-based recommendations on duration of multiagent systemic therapy for LAPC are lacking. Herein, we assess the impact of duration of combination systemic therapy on survival of patients with LAPC. Methods The National Cancer Database was interrogated to identify patients with untreated LAPC diagnosed from 2004 to 2014. Patients treated with >= 1 month of multiagent chemotherapy (MAC) and >= 6 months of follow-up were included. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to examine OS of each MAC duration group. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association between OS with demographic and clinical variables. Statistical computations were performed using SAS Software Version 9.4. Results Of the 3410 patients, 1114 met inclusion criteria. Median age was 64 years. Median treatment duration was 3.2 months (range 1-19.8). Median follow-up was 23.5 months (range 3-120). Median OS of all patients was 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.7-10.1). Median OS of patients receiving >= 1-4 months, >4-6 months and > 6 months of MAC was 8.4 months (95% CI: 7.7-9), 10.2 months (95% CI: 9-11.8), and 12.8 months (95% CI 11.6-16). Twelve-month survival was 37% for patients receiving >= 1-4 months, 43% for > 4-6 months, and 56% for > 6 months. Female sex (P = .02), higher median household income (P = .03), and longer duration of MAC (P < .001) were independently associated with improved OS following multivariable analysis. Conclusion This analysis in LAPC patients suggests that combination systemic therapy regimens of 6 months or more may optimize survival outcomes. Further investigation on the duration of systemic therapy question in LAPC is needed.

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

4.6
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