This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Introduction: Despite a clinically relevant, statistically significant survival benefit with nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX vs single-agent gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), little is known regarding their real-world effectiveness. We analyzed patients with mPC using a nationally representative electronic medical records database to address this unmet need. Methods: This retrospective analysis of the Navigating Cancer database compared outcomes among patients who received first-line nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, or gemcitabine for mPC. Effectiveness, safety, and supportive care use were examined. nab -Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine was the reference for statistical comparisons. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar except age (oldest patients were in the gemcitabine cohort followed by nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, then FOLFIRINOX). Patients receiving nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (n=122) demonstrated similar time to treatment discontinuation (TTD; median, 3.4 vs 3.8 months; P =0.947) and database persistence (DP; median, 8.6 vs 8.6 months; P =0.534) vs FOLFIRINOX (n=80); however, TTD (median, 3.4 vs 2.2 months; P <0.001) and DP (median, 8.6 vs 5.3 months; P =0.030) were significantly longer with nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine (n=46). There were more any-grade adverse events with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine vs nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (95% or 89% vs 84%, respectively). Conclusion: This real-world analysis confirms the phase III MPACT trial findings and demonstrates that nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine has effectiveness similar to that of FOLFIRINOX but greater tolerability for treating mPC despite younger patients being in the FOLFIRINOX cohort. These findings support nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as an appropriate first-line treatment option for patients with mPC.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Braiteh et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: