Published online Nov 15, 2019. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i11.1021
Peer-review started: May 23, 2019
First decision: July 31, 2019
Revised: September 3, 2019
Accepted: September 12, 2019
Article in press: September 13, 2019
Published online: November 15, 2019
Processing time: 179 Days and 4.1 Hours
There is no standard therapy for second-line treatment of gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients with poor performance status. A combination of chemotherapy drugs 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan can be considered as second-line treatment for such patients; however, due to toxicity, none of the regimens are recommended for patients with poor performance. Capecitabine or S-1 has relatively low toxicity and can be considered a treatment option for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.
To investigate the efficacy and toxicity of oral chemotherapy as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Patients who had progressive disease after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed between January 2011 and December 2018. They were treated with capecitabine or S-1 as the second-line treatment. Capecitabine was administered as a 2500 mg/m2 divided dose on days 1-14, followed by a 1-wk rest. S-1 was taken orally based on the patient’s body surface area for 28 d, followed by 2-wk of rest. Progression-free survival and overall survival were used to compare efficacy of capecitabine and S-1.
Of the 81 patients, 41 were treated with capecitabine and 40 with S-1. The median time to treatment failure in both groups was 1.5 mo (P = 0.425). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 9.8% with capecitabine and 2.5% with S-1 (P = 0.359). Median progression-free survival was longer in the S-1 group than in the capecitabine group (S-1 2.7 mo, capecitabine 2.0 mo, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the median overall survival between the capecitabine and S-1 groups (4.3 mo vs 5.0 mo, P = 0.092). Grade 3 or 4 hand-foot syndrome was significantly more common in the capecitabine group than in the S-1 group (14.6% vs 0%, P = 0.026).
Capecitabine or S-1 can be used as a second-line treatment for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with poor performance status after progression to a gemcitabine-based regimen.
Core tip: To date, there is no standard regimen for patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer with poor performance status. In this study, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of capecitabine and S-1 for such patients. The median progression free survival was longer in the S-1 group than in the capecitabine group; however, there were no statistical differences in their overall survival. Among grade 3 or 4 toxicity, hand-foot syndrome was significantly more common in the capecitabine group than in the S-1 group. Thus, oral chemotherapy can be considered as a second-line treatment in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients with poor performance status.