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
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is one of the leading causes of death from cancer in the world, and it carries a grim prognosis. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, thus systemic chemotherapy plays a key role in treatment. 5-fluorouracil combination regimens may be considered in patients who have failed first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. However, due to toxicity, these regimens are not considered for elderly patients or those with poor performance status.
Capecitabine has shown activity as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, with a relatively good response. Also, S-1 has shown favorable antitumor activity in several phase II studies in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Thus, oral chemotherapy, such as capecitabine or S-1, can be a second-line treatment option for patients with poor performance status, due to less toxicity. However, until recently, few studies have compared the efficacy and toxicity of these two drugs.
This study investigated the efficacy and toxicity of oral chemotherapy, with capecitabine or S-1 as the second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic cancer who have failed to gemcitabine-based therapy.
This study used a retrospective cohort analysis to compare efficacy and toxicity between capecitabine and S-1 in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. The survival outcomes of the two groups were compared through a Cox regression model, and displayed using Kaplan-Meier curve.
The objective response rates were similar in both groups with no statistical difference. The objective response rate in this study was consistent with the results of previous studies. There was no significant difference in the median overall survival between the two groups. Median progression-free survival was longer in the S-1 group than in the capecitabine group, however, differences in duration of response assessment of the two regimens may affect the results. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity was similar in both groups; however, hand-foot syndrome was more frequently observed in the capecitabine group.
Capecitabine and S-1 showed relatively favorable efficacy and low toxicity, which can be considered as a second-line treatment option for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients with poor performance status. Hand-foot syndrome was significantly less common in the S-1 group, thus S-1 may be considered in patients who have experienced intolerable hand-foot syndrome during capecitabine treatment.
Our study showed that oral chemotherapy can be considered as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine failure. This study is a retrospective analysis with small sample size, thus further randomized prospective study are needed to confirm our preliminary results.