4.4 Article

Non-pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin as Palliative Chemotherapy in pre-Treated Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of Twenty-Eight Patients

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/15330338211042139

关键词

pancreatic cancer; palliative therapy; liposomal doxorubicin; chemotherapy; chemoresistance

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A retrospective analysis of 28 pancreatic cancer patients treated with nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin between 2012 and 2018 showed limited benefit of the drug beyond the second line of therapy.
Background: Pancreatic cancer carries a devastating prognosis and is the fourth leading cause for cancer-related death in the United States and most European countries. Although one-third of patients receive a palliative third line therapy, the benefit of systemic therapy beyond second-line remains unclear. A plethora of clinical trials investigating novel drugs have failed over the past years. Due to the lack of established treatment regimens beyond second line, we offered nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin, well known in other tumor entities, to pretreated pancreatic cancer patients requesting systemic therapy. Material and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, 28 patients with pancreatic carcinoma treated with nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet (R)) between 2012 and 2018 at our department were included. Results: For the majority of patients (n = 18, 64%), nonpeglyted liposomal doxorubicin was offered as a third-line therapy. Five patients received it as second line, four patients as fourth line, and one patient as fifth line of therapy. Half of the patients received at least a therapy cycle. The objective response rate to treatment was 7.1%. One patient had a period of radiologically confirmed stable disease with stable tumor markers. Another patient experienced partial remission. Conclusion: According to our findings the benefit of nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin in pancreatic cancer beyond second line is limited.

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