The oncologist · 2022
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel versus Gemcitabine Alone in Older Adults with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kobayashi Satoshi, Suzuki Motoko, Ueno Makoto, Maruki Yuta, Okano Naohiro, Todaka Akiko, Ozaka Masato, Tsuji Kunihiro, Shioji Kazuhiko, Doi Keitaro, Kojima Yasushi, Tsumura Hidetaka, Tanaka Kazunari, Higuchi Hajime, Kawabe Ken, Imaoka Hiroshi, Yamashita Tatsuya, Miwa Haruo, Nagano Hiroaki, Arima Shiho, Hayashi Hideyuki, Naganuma Atsushi, Yamaguchi Hironori, Hisano Terumasa, Umemoto Kumiko, Ishii Shuji, Nakashima Koji, Suzuki Rei, Kitano Yohei, Misumi Toshihiro, Furuse Junji, Ishii Hiroshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) has been a standard treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer (uPC); however, the current treatment status and usefulness in older adults with uPC remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the patient background and compare the efficacy and safety of GnP versus other treatments in older adults with uPC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 233 eligible patients aged ≥76 years with pathologically proven, clinically uPC, and no history of chemotherapy from 55 Japanese centers during September 2018-September 2019. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Geriatric assessments were performed upon registration and after 3 months. To adjust for confounders, we conducted propensity score-matched analyses.
RESULTS: GnP, gemcitabine alone (Gem), best supportive care, and other therapies were administered to 116, 72, 16, and 29 patients, respectively. In the propensity score-matched analysis, 42 patients each were selected from the GnP and Gem groups. The median OS was longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (12.2 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.37-1.13). The median PFS was significantly longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (9.2 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.64). The incidence of severe adverse events was higher with GnP than with Gem; however, the difference was not significant.
CONCLUSION: GnP is more efficacious than Gem in patients aged ≥76 years with uPC despite demonstrating a higher incidence of severe adverse events.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 233 eligible patients aged ≥76 years with pathologically proven, clinically uPC, and no history of chemotherapy from 55 Japanese centers during September 2018-September 2019. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Geriatric assessments were performed upon registration and after 3 months. To adjust for confounders, we conducted propensity score-matched analyses.
RESULTS: GnP, gemcitabine alone (Gem), best supportive care, and other therapies were administered to 116, 72, 16, and 29 patients, respectively. In the propensity score-matched analysis, 42 patients each were selected from the GnP and Gem groups. The median OS was longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (12.2 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.37-1.13). The median PFS was significantly longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (9.2 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.64). The incidence of severe adverse events was higher with GnP than with Gem; however, the difference was not significant.
CONCLUSION: GnP is more efficacious than Gem in patients aged ≥76 years with uPC despite demonstrating a higher incidence of severe adverse events.