4.6 Article

Systemic inflammation adversely affects response to anamorelin in patients with pancreatic cancer

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08206-3

关键词

Anamorelin; Cachexia; Pancreatic cancer; Systemic inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate whether systemic inflammation indicators can predict the effect of anamorelin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The results showed that the C-reactive protein-albumin ratio (CAR) can predict the efficacy of anamorelin.
PurposeAnamorelin, a selective ghrelin receptor agonist, has been approved for pancreatic cancer treatment in Japan. We aimed to investigate whether systemic inflammation, represented by the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), and C-reactive protein (CRP)-albumin ratio (CAR), could predict the effect of anamorelin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsThis study included 31 patients who had received anamorelin for advanced pancreatic cancer between 2021 and 2023. Patients' NLR, PLR, LMR, and CAR were evaluated before anamorelin administration. The patients were classified as responders and non-responders based on whether they gained body weight after 3 months of anamorelin administration. We investigated the association between systemic inflammation and anamorelin efficacy using a univariate analysis.ResultsTwelve (39%) patients were non-responders. A high serum CRP level (p = 0.007) and high CAR (p = 0.013) was associated with non-response to anamorelin. According to the receiver operating characteristics analysis, the CAR cutoff value was 0.06, and CAR >= 0.06 was a risk factor (odds ratio, 5.6 [95% confidence interval 1.2-27.1], p = 0.032) for non-response to anamorelin.ConclusionCAR can be a predictor of non-response to anamorelin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, suggesting the importance of a comprehensive assessment of the inflammatory status.

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