Evidence Hub

Efficacy and treatment-related adverse events of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer "in a Korean" population: A single-center cohort study

I. Cho, Huapyong Kang, J. Jo, H. Lee, M. Chung, J. Park, S. Park, Si-Young Song et al.

Seminars in Oncology, 2017

81 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer has poor prognosis because of its rapid progression and treatment resistance. Based on the results of the Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial (MPACT), a combination regimen of gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel is currently used as standard therapy for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. However, because studies in Asian populations are lacking, we investigated the treatment efficacy and safety of this combination therapy in Korean population. Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (n=81) treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (1,000 and 125 mg/m2, respectively) as the first-line chemotherapy from January 2016 were identified using the Severance Hospital Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Registry. Treatment efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were analyzed. The median follow-up period was 10.7 months (range, 1.5-23.3 months). Median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rates were 12.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7-not estimable), 8.4 months (95% CI, 5.0-11.8), and 46.9%, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 neurotoxicity and neutropenia were 18.5% and 46.9%, respectively. Febrile neutropenia and grade ≥3 gastrointestinal AEs occurred in 13 (16.0%) and 16 (19.8%) patients, respectively. Dose reductions because of AEs were required in 60.5% of patients. The combination of gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel is an effective anti-cancer regimen in Korean population of patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 81 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free