Third-line treatment options in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients: a real-world study

Background

There are currently no standard therapy regimens for the third-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different third-line therapy regimens for mPC in the real-world.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed mPC patients admitted to Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital between June 2013 and January 2023. All patients' diagnoses were pathologically confirmed and their treatment was continued after the second-line therapy failed. The primary study endpoints included median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and disease control rate (DCR).

Results

A total of 72 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 36 patients received chemotherapy alone, 16 received chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy, 14 received chemotherapy-free antitumor therapy, and six received palliative care. The mPFS value for these groups was 4.40 months, 5.20 months, 2.33 months, and 0.80 months, respectively. The mOS value was 6.90 months, 5.90 months, 3.33 months, and 0.80 months, respectively. The DCR was 33.4%, 31.3%, 21.4%, and 0.0%, respectively. Overall, there were significant differences in prognosis between the palliative care group and the other treatment groups (mOS, P < 0.001; mPFS P < 0.001; DCR, P < 0.001). The differences among the mPFS, mOS, and DCR for different antitumor therapy regimens were not statistically significant. Compared to the chemotherapy alone group, the chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy group experienced more adverse events (100% vs. 75.0%; P = 0.002). Chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy was associated with a higher risk of grade 3/4 hyperaminotransferemia compared to chemotherapy alone (31.3% vs. 0.0%; P = 0.020) and chemotherapy-free antitumor therapy (31.3% vs. 0.0%; P = 0.020).

Conclusions

Third-line antitumor therapy can prolong the survival time of patients with mPC. Targeted therapy or immunotherapy failed to further improve survival benefits based on chemotherapy results. Patients who underwent the third-line treatment with good physical status and family history of cancer were independent prognostic factors for longer mOS. The sequencing of fluorouracil and gemcitabine in the front-line therapy did not affect third-line mOS.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Many options for third-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma (GEJC) have been developed. Therapies including immunotherapy (nivolumab), chemotherapy (irinotecan, FTD/TPI), targeted therapy (apatinib), and antibody drug conjugates (ADC) have shown to increase the survival rates in patients, but few studies have compared the relative efficacy of these treatments. Here, we compared the efficacies of these regimens using network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide guides in selecting the best regimen and formulating a precise individualized treatment plan.

Methods

The published RCTs of phase II/III in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched. The median overall survival (mOS) was the primary outcome of NMA, and the other outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) (proportion of patients with confirmed CR, PR, or stable disease (SD)) and incidence of grade 3 or above adverse events (≥3AEs).

Results

Five phase II/III RCTs involving 1674 patients and 7 treatment regimens were analyzed. It showed that Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (DS-8201) prolonged the OS of patients significantly comparing with chemotherapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.89) for the overall population. DS-8201 (HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17-0.42) and chemotherapy (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.47-0.7) improved the PFS significantly over nivolumab. Apatinib (RR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.65-5.95) and DS-8201 (RR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.51-4.83) were more effective than nivolumab in improving DCR. DS-8201 achieved greater OS benefits compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.88) for patients who were HER2-positive. We ranked the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve according to OS benefit, and showed that ADC ranked first for the general patient population and for patients with a HER2-positive diagnosis, intestinal histopathology, previous gastrectomy history, gastric origination cancer, ages over 65 and ECOG PS=0/1, followed by nivolumab and apatinib. For patients with GEJC, nivolumab ranked first.

Conclusions

Nivolumab, apatinib, chemotherapy, and ADC all improved the OS of GC/GEJC patients significantly. ADC may be the best option for the overall population of GC, as well as for patients with HER2-overexpression, intestinal histopathology, previous gastrectomy history, gastric origination cancer, ages over 65 and ECOG PS=0/1, followed by nivolumab and apatinib. Nivolumab may be the first treatment option for GEJC patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42022364714.

Irinotecan monotherapy as third- or further-line treatment for patients with small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a very aggressive cancer and recurrence is inevitable. Treatment of recurrent disease is important for improving the prognosis of patients with SCLC.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study to investigate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan monotherapy as third- or further-line treatment in patients with SCLC.

RESULTS

Data of 15 patients who had received irinotecan monotherapy as third- or further-line treatment between 2004 and 2019 were analyzed. The median progression-free survival duration (95% confidence interval) from the initiation of treatment with irinotecan was 2.7 (1.4-3.8) months, and the median overall survival duration (95% confidence interval) from the initiation of irinotecan treatment was 10.0 (3.9-12.9) months. Partial response, stable disease or non-complete response/non-progressive disease, and progressive disease were observed in 1, 6, and 8 patients, respectively. Adverse events ⩾ grade 3 in severity were observed in 2/2 (100%) patients who were homozygous for UGT1A1 mutation, 2/3 (66.7%) patients who were heterozygous for UGT1A1 mutation, 4/6 (66.7%) patients who had wild-type UGT1A1, and 2/4 (50.0%) patients in whom the UGT1A1 mutation status was unknown.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that irinotecan monotherapy can be a useful alternative treatment option in the third-line setting for patients with SCLC.

Clinical Impact of Primary Tumor Location and RAS, BRAF V600E, and PIK3CA Mutations on Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor Efficacy as Third-line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

Primary tumor location and RAS and BRAF V600E mutations are predictors of the efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. However, there are limited reports on their effects on the outcomes of third-line chemotherapy with EGFR inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected the clinical data of KRAS exon 2 wild type (WT) mCRC patients treated with EGFR inhibitor monotherapy or EGFR inhibitor plus irinotecan as third-line chemotherapy. The association between primary tumor location, RAS (KRAS exon 3, 4 or NRAS), BRAF V600E, and PIK3CA mutational status, and treatment outcome was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were included in this study. In multivariate analysis, RAS (p=0.004) and BRAF mutations (p=0.00008) were independent factors for shorter PFS. Poor performance status (p=0.01) and BRAF mutation (p=0.00002) were independent factors for shorter OS, whereas primary tumor location and PIK3CA mutation did not influence survival.

CONCLUSION

Additional analysis of RAS and BRAF mutations could contribute to the selection of patients who are likely to benefit from third-line EGFR inhibitors, regardless of primary tumor location.

Benefit of pazopanib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours: results from a phase II trial (SSG XXI, PAGIST)

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) resistant to the tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib and sunitinib may be treated with regorafenib, which resulted in a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.8 months in the GRID trial. Also, pazopanib, another tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been studied in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (PAZOGIST) in the third line, which showed a PFS of 45.2% 4 months after study entry, but patients intolerant to sunitinib were also included. We designed another trial evaluating pazopanib, enrolling only patients with progression on both imatinib and sunitinib.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Since all eligible patients had progressive disease, we preferred a non-randomized, phase II multicentre trial so that all patients could receive a potentially active drug. Patients had a progressive metastatic or locally advanced GIST and were ≥18 years of age, with a performance status of 0-2, and sufficient organ functions. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (defined as complete remission + partial remission + stable disease) at 12 weeks on pazopanib. A Simon's two-stage analysis was used with an interim analysis 12 weeks after enrollment of the first 22 patients, and if passed, there was a full enrolment of 72 patients. GIST mutational analysis was done, and most patients had pazopanib plasma concentration measured after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled. The disease control rate after 12 weeks was 44%, and the median PFS was 19.6 weeks (95% confidence interval 12.6-23.4 weeks). Pazopanib-related toxicity was moderate and manageable. No statistically significant differences were found related to mutations. Plasma concentrations of pazopanib had a formal but weak correlation with outcome.

CONCLUSION

Pazopanib given in the third line to patients with GIST progressing on both imatinib and sunitinib was beneficial for about half of the patients. The PAGIST trial confirms the results from the PAZOGIST trial, and the median PFS achieved seems comparable to the PFS achieved with regorafenib in the third-line setting.

Risk-benefit Analysis of FOLFIRI Plus Ramucirumab/Aflibercept as a Third-line Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

The efficacy of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab (F-RAM) or aflibercept (F-AFL) as a second-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is established. In this study, the risks and benefits of F-RAM/AFL as a third-line treatment after first- and second-line bevacizumab for mCRC were evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) were compared between groups treated with F-RAM/AFL (n=17) and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet (TAS-102) (n=26).

RESULTS

Median OS was longer in the third-line F-RAM/AFL group (379 days; 95%CI=157-458 days) than in the TAS-102 group (183 days; 95%CI=80-204 days) (log-rank test, p=0.015). Discontinuation due to AEs was only observed in the F-RAM/AFL group (3 cases).

CONCLUSION

As a third-line treatment for mCRC, F-RAM/AFL should be prioritized over TAS-102 in terms of efficacy; however, the risk of AEs should be considered.

Patient demographics and management landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting: Real-world data in an australian population

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer mortality in Australia, thus carrying a significant disease burden.

AIMS

This analysis aims to explore real-world treatment landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed treatment of recurrent and advanced colorectal cancer (TRACC) registry database from 2009 onwards. Patients treated with palliative intent who progressed after two lines of therapies were included. One treatment line was defined as any combination of systemic therapy given until progression.

RESULTS

Out of 1820 patients treated palliatively, 32% (590 patients) met study criteria. Of these, 43% (254 patients) proceeded to third-line therapy, equating to 14% of all metastatic patients. In KRAS mutant or unknown tumours (97 patients), fluoropyrimidine (FP)-oxaliplatin combination was the most common choice (51%), followed by FP-irinotecan (15%), trifluridine/tipiracil (11%), mono-chemotherapy (10%), regorafenib (5%) and others (7%). Majority of FP-doublet (83%) was given as rechallenge. In 157 patients with KRAS wildtype disease, monotherapy with EGFR inhibitor was most commonly used (41%), followed by EGFR inhibitor with chemotherapy (20%), FP-doublet (18%), mono-chemotherapy (6%), trifluridine/tipiracil (6%), regorafenib (1%) and others (8%). Median overall survival was 7.1 months (range 0.4-41.2), and median time on third-line treatment was 3 months (range 0.1-40).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world Australian population, treatment choices differed based on KRAS status and will likely change with the availability of newer drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Survival outcomes are comparable to newer agents in clinical trials for select patients.

Durvalumab monotherapy as a third-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a case report

The global incidence and mortality rates of lung cancer are the highest of any cancer. Smallcell lung cancer (SCLC) is an undifferentiated carcinoma which accounts for 15-20% of all lung cancers. Compared with the other major lung cancer type, non-small cell lung cancer, SCLC exhibits worse biological behavior, has a higher degree of malignancy, and develops more rapidly. The majority of SCLC present with extensive-stage disease, and the prognosis for these patients remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has been demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC); however, the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in ES-SCLC needs further confirmation. Durvalumab, a selective, high-affinity human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80, showed durable clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with pretreated ES-SCLC as a first-line treatment. Here, we report the case of an ES-SCLC patient who achieved complete remission (CR) of local lesions after receiving durvalumab monotherapy as a third-line treatment, experiencing no obvious immune-related side effects, such as rash, diarrhea, fatigue, myelosuppression, or thyroid dysfunction. No immune-related pulmonary or hepatorenal toxicities occurred. The case suggests that immunotherapy can be selected for third-line or multi-line treatment of ES-SCLC, and anti-PD-L1 antibody may be the better choice for patients who have poor performance status (PS) scores.

Risk Benefit of FOLFIRI Plus Ramucirumab as Third-line and Later-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of this study was to clarify the risk benefits of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab (F-RAM) as third-line and later-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared the overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs), and cost of F-RAM to those of trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet (TAS-102).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the median OS [6.1 (range=1.2-16.3) months vs. 6.1 (range=1.2-22.3) months; log-rank test, p=0.272] and treatment duration [4.0 (range=1.2-9.6) months vs. 3.5 (range=0.2-12.3) months, p=0.888] between the F-RAM (n=13) and the TAS-102 (n=36) groups. However, AEs were more frequent in the F-RAM group, and 1-year administration of F-RAM cost higher ($81,724.8 vs. $18,931.4, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

F-RAM as third-line and later-line treatment for mCRC has a poor risk benefit. TAS-102 should be given priority over F-RAM.

Safety of eribulin as third-line chemotherapy in HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer pre-treated with taxanes and anthracycline: OnSITE study

Eribulin is active and safe in heavily pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients. Few safety data have been published in third line. We aimed to report the specific safety profile on third line beyond taxanes and anthracyclines in advanced breast cancer (ABC). A multicenter phase II, prospective study was conducted in anthracyclines and taxanes pre-treated HER2-negative ABC, programmed to receive eribulin as third-line chemotherapy. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed and classified according to CTCAE. In addition, efficacy, in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the dynamics of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) during treatment were assessed. 59 patients fulfilled the criteria. All but one showed AEs with a cumulative number of 598 AEs. The most frequent grade 3/4 drug-related AEs were neutropenia (1.7%), febrile neutropenia (0.5%), leukopenia (0.5%), alopecia (0.5%), asthenia (0.3%), elevated gamma glutamyl transferase levels (0.2%), and respiratory tract infection (0.2%). Median PFS was 4 months (95% CI 3.1-5.9) and median OS was 13.6 months (11.8-not reached). The mean number of CTCs in peripheral blood was significantly reduced from baseline to cycle 2 (16.8 vs 5.4 CTCs; P < 0.001). Median OS was significantly longer in <5 baseline CTC patients compared to ≥5 baseline CTC patients (13.1 months [95% CI: 11.8-not reached] vs 12.5 months [95% CI: 7.6-not reached]; P = 0.045). A significant correlation (P = 0.0129) was observed between CTC levels at cycle 2 and death when CTCs were analyzed using cox regression. Eribulin chemotherapy is effective and safe as third line in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. CTC levels correlate with overall survival.

Fourteen-day high-dose esomeprazole, amoxicillin and metronidazole as third-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of currently recommended third-line therapies for Helicobacter pylori is suboptimal, even that of culture-guided treatments. Resistance to multiple antibiotics is the major factor related to treatment failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a 14-day therapy using high-dose of amoxicillin, metronidazole and esomeprazole.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Multicenter open-label study as a register in routine clinical practice in patients with two previous failures of eradication therapy. A triple therapy with esomeprazole 40 mg b.d., amoxicillin 1 g t.d.s and metronidazole 500 mg t.d.s for 2 weeks was administered as a third-line therapy after a first treatment including clarithromycin and a second treatment including a quinolone. Helicobacter pylori status was determined by either histology or ¹³ C-UBT both before and after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients were included in this study. An interim analysis showed that only three out of eight patients who had received metronidazole in previous eradication regimens were cured (37%, 95% CI 8-75); as a result, after this interim analysis only metronidazole-naïve patients were included. The ITT eradication rate in metronidazole-naive patients was 64% (95% CI 51-76). Adverse events occurred in 58% of patients, all of them mild-to-moderate. Two patients (3%) did not complete >90% of the treatment because of side effects. No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Cure rates of this 14-day schedule using high-dose esomeprazole, amoxicillin and metronidazole as a third-line eradication regimen were suboptimal, especially in patients who had received metronidazole in previous failed eradication regimens.

Systematic review: third-line susceptibility-guided treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Susceptibility-guided therapies (SGTs) have been proposed as preferable to empirical rescue treatments after two treatment failures. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of SGT as third-line therapy.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in multiple databases. Studies reporting cure rates of Helicobacter pylori with SGT in third-line therapy were selected. A qualitative analysis describing the current evidence and a pooled mean analysis summarizing the cure rates of SGT in third-line therapy was performed.

RESULTS

No randomized controlled trials or comparative studies were found. Four observational studies reported cure rates with SGT in third-line treatment, and three studies which mixed patients with second- and third-line treatment also reported cure rates with SGT. The majority of the studies included the patients when culture had been already obtained, and so the effectiveness of SGT and empirical therapy has never been compared. A pooled mean analysis including four observational studies (283 patients) showed intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates with SGT of 72% (95% confidence interval 56-87%; I(2) : 92%) and 80% (95% confidence interval 71-90%; I(2) : 80%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SGT may be an acceptable option as rescue treatment. However, cure rates are, at best, moderate and this approach has never been compared with a well-devised empirical therapy. The evidence in favor of SGT as rescue therapy is currently insufficient to recommend its use.