Evidence Hub

Retrospective analysis of fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy (FGS) as salvage chemotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer: inflammation-based prognostic score predicts survival

Kasuga A, Okano N, Naruge D, Kitamura H, Takasu A, Nagashima F, Furuse J

Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 2015

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy (FGS) in patients with gemcitabine (GEM)-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC) and to explore independent variables associated with survival.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with GEM-refractory PC who received FGS at our institution from March 2009 to December 2013. GEM was administered by fixed dose rate intravenous infusion of 1,200 mg/m(2) as a 120-min infusion on day 1, and S-1 was administered orally twice a day at a dose of 40 mg/m(2) on days 1-7. Cycles were repeated every 14 days.

RESULTS: Sixty-one patients with GEM-refractory PC received FGS. Sixteen patients received FGS as third-line treatment. Twenty-nine patients (48 %) had a history of S-1 administration. The objective response rate was 13 %, and the disease control rate was 49 %. The median progression-free survival time was 2.7 months, and the median overall survival time was 6.0 months. Major Grade 3 or 4 adverse events included neutropenia (15 %), diarrhea (3 %), anorexia (2 %), and fatigue (2 %). A high inflammation-based prognostic score (modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), which incorporates C-reactive protein and albumin), a performance status >0, and serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level >2,000 IU/ml were independently associated with a poor outcome.

CONCLUSIONS: FGS might be effective and well tolerated as salvage chemotherapy in a…

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.

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