Asma Sultana

Meta-Analyses of Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE There are a large number of randomized controlled trials involving chemotherapy in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer. Several chemotherapeutic agents, either alone or in combination with other chemotherapy or novel agents, have been used. The aim of these meta-analyses was to examine the different therapeutic approaches, and the comparisons examined were as follows: chemotherapy versus best supportive care; fluorouracil (FU) versus FU combination chemotherapy; gemcitabine versus FU; and gemcitabine versus gemcitabine combination chemotherapy. METHODS Relevant trials were identified by searching databases, trial registers, and conference proceedings. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS One hundred thirteen randomized controlled trials were identified, of which 51 trials involving 9,970 patients met the inclusion criteria. Chemotherapy improved survival compared with best supportive care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.98). FU-based combination chemotherapy did not result in better overall survival compared with FU alone (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.08). There was insufficient evidence of a survival difference between gemcitabine and FU, but the wide CI includes clinically important differences in both directions, making a clear conclusion difficult (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.31). Survival was improved after gemcitabine combination chemotherapy compared with gemcitabine alone (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.97). CONCLUSION There was a significant survival benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care and gemcitabine combinations over gemcitabine alone. This supports the use of gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Systematic review, including meta-analyses, on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer using radiation/combined modality therapy.

There is no consensus on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer, with either chemotherapy or combined modality approaches being employed (Maheshwari and Moser, 2005). No published meta-analysis (Fung et al, 2003; Banu et al, 2005; Liang, 2005; Bria et al, 2006; Milella et al, 2006) has included randomised controlled trials employing radiation therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the following: (i) chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy (combined modality therapy) vs best supportive care (ii) radiotherapy vs chemoradiation (iii) radiotherapy vs combined modality therapy (iv) chemotherapy vs combined modality therapy (v) 5FU-based combined modality treatment vs another-agent-based combined modality therapy. Relevant randomised controlled trials were identified by searching databases, trial registers and conference proceedings. The primary end point was overall survival and secondary end points were progression-free survival/time-to-progression, response rate and adverse events. Survival data were summarised using hazard ratio (HR) and response-rate/adverse-event data with relative risk. Eleven trials involving 794 patients met the inclusion criteria. Length of survival with chemoradiation was increased compared with radiotherapy alone (two trials, 168 patients, HR 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–0.94), but chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not lead to a survival advantage over chemotherapy alone (two trials, 134 patients, HR 0.79; CI 0.32–1.95). Meta-analyses could not be performed for the other comparisons. A survival benefit was demonstrated for chemoradiation over radiotherapy alone. Chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not demonstrate any survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, but important clinical differences cannot be ruled out due to the wide CI.

Meta-analyses of chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of secondary end points analyses

In advanced pancreatic cancer, level one evidence has established a significant survival advantage with chemotherapy, compared to best supportive care. The treatment-associated toxicity needs to be evaluated. This study examines the secondary outcome measures for chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer using meta-analyses. A systematic review was undertaken employing Cochrane methodology, with search of databases, conference proceedings and trial registers. The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) (summarised using the hazard ratio (HR)), response rate and toxicity (summarised using relative risk). There was no significant advantage of 5FU combinations vs 5FU alone for TTP (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.85–1.23) and toxicity. Progression-free survival (HR 0.78; CI 0.70–0.88), TTP (HR=0.85; 95% CI=0.72–0.99) and overall response rate (RR=0.56; 95% CI=0.46–0.68) were significantly better for gemcitabine combination chemotherapy, but offset by the greater grade 3/4 toxicity thrombocytopenia (RR=1.94; 95% CI=1.32–2.84), leucopenia (RR=1.46; 95% CI=1.15–1.86), neutropenia (RR=1.48; 95% CI=1.07–2.05), nausea (RR=1.77; 95% CI=1.37–2.29), vomiting (RR=1.64; 95% CI=1.24–2.16) and diarrhoea (RR=2.73; 95% CI=1.87–3.98). There is no significant advantage on secondary end point analyses for administering 5FU in combination over 5FU alone. There is improved PFS/TTP and response rate, with gemcitabine-based combinations, although this comes with greater toxicity.

Gemcitabine based combination chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer-indirect comparison

BackgroundRecent meta-analyses have found a survival advantage with gemcitabine based combinations over single agent gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. There is paucity of evidence in the form of direct head-to-head randomised controlled trials to determine which combinations are to be preferred.MethodUsing the adjusted indirect comparison method proposed by Bucher et al, we have assessed randomised controlled trials of four gemcitabine based combinations namely gemcitabine plus a platinum compound or 5-fluorouracil or irinotecan or capecitabine.ResultsNo particular combination was significantly superior to another, but the indirect evidence suggests some important trends.ConclusionThe strongest trends on indirect comparison are towards favouring gemcitabine plus capecitabine or gemcitabine plus a platinum compound over gemcitabine plus irinotecan, and to a lesser degree, over gemcitabine plus 5-fluorouracil.

Randomised Phase I/II trial assessing the safety and efficacy of radiolabelled anti-carcinoembryonic antigen I(131) KAb201 antibodies given intra-arterially or intravenously in patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BackgroundAdvanced pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis, and the current standard of care (gemcitabine based chemotherapy) provides a small survival advantage. However the drawback is the accompanying systemic toxicity, which targeted treatments may overcome. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of KAb201, an anti-carcinoembryonic antigen monoclonal antibody, labelled with I131 in pancreatic cancer (ISRCTN 16857581).MethodsPatients with histological/cytological proven inoperable adenocarcinoma of the head of pancreas were randomised to receive KAb 201 via either the intra-arterial or intravenous delivery route. The dose limiting toxicities within each group were determined. Patients were assessed for safety and efficacy and followed up until death.ResultsBetween February 2003 and July 2005, 25 patients were enrolled. Nineteen patients were randomised, 9 to the intravenous and 10 to the intra-arterial arms. In the intra-arterial arm, dose limiting toxicity was seen in 2/6 (33%) patients at 50 mCi whereas in the intravenous arm, dose limiting toxicity was noted in 1/6 patients at 50 mCi, but did not occur at 75 mCi (0/3).The overall response rate was 6% (1/18). Median overall survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval = 3.3 to 9 months), with no significant difference between the intravenous and intra-arterial arms (log rank test p = 0.79). One patient was still alive at the time of this analysis.ConclusionDose limiting toxicity for KAb201 with I131 by the intra-arterial route was 50 mCi, while dose limiting toxicity was not reached in the intravenous arm.

What Is the Best Way to Identify Malignant Transformation Within Pancreatic IPMN: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objectives:Pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasias (IPMNs) represent 25% of all cystic neoplasms and are precursor lesions for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to identify the best imaging modality for detecting malignant transformation in IPMN, the sensitivity and specificity of risk features on imaging, and the usefulness of tumor markers in serum and cyst fluid to predict malignancy in IPMN.Methods:Databases were searched from November 2006 to March 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic techniques/imaging features of suspected malignancy in IPMN using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic (HSROC) approach were performed.Results:A total of 467 eligible studies were identified, of which 51 studies met the inclusion criteria and 37 of these were incorporated into meta-analyses. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for risk features predictive of malignancy on computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging were 0.809 and 0.762 respectively, and on positron emission tomography were 0.968 and 0.911. Mural nodule, cyst size, and main pancreatic duct dilation found on imaging had pooled sensitivity for prediction of malignancy of 0.690, 0.682, and 0.614, respectively, and specificity of 0.798, 0.574, and 0.687. Raised serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels yielded sensitivity of 0.380 and specificity of 0903. Combining parameters yielded a sensitivity of 0.743 and specificity of 0.906.Conclusions:PET holds the most promise in identifying malignant transformation within an IPMN. Combining parameters increases sensitivity and specificity; the presence of mural nodule on imaging was the most sensitive whereas raised serum CA19-9 (>37 KU/l) was the most specific feature predictive of malignancy in IPMNs.