Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Sequential therapy of refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer with 5-FU/LV/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) vs. 5-FU/LV/oxaliplatin (OFF). The PANTHEON trial (AIO PAK 0116)
In patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, after failure of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, this trial compares the efficacy of second-line therapy with FOLFIRI vs. OFF (1:1 randomisation) with cross-over to the vice-versa regimen as third-line therapy.
Patients and Methods
The primary endpoint was PFS (progression-free survival: time from randomization until progression or death) of second-line therapy. The trial aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of FOLFIRI vs OFF (non-inferiority margin of a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.5, power of 80% and a significance level of 5%, 196 events needed). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival of third-line therapy and safety. The trial is registered with EudraCT Nr. 2016–004640-11.
Results
The trial was terminated with 60 evaluable (37 with FOLFIRI, 23 with OFF) patients due to insufficient recruitment. PFS of second-line therapy was 2.4 (95% CI 2.3–2.6) months with FOLFIRI vs 2.4 (95% CI 2.2–2.7) months with OFF (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.45–1.42, P = 0.43). OS was comparable between the arms (HR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.54–1.66), P = 0.84). Only 4 out of 28 (14%) patients receiving third-line therapy achieved a disease control (partial remission or stable disease). Both second-line regimens were well tolerated without new or unexpected safety signals being observed.
Conclusion
The exploratory analysis of this early terminated trial suggests that FOLFIRI and OFF have similar efficacy ant toxicity as second-line therapy of PDAC after failure of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Third-line therapy regardless of regimen does not provide satisfactory efficacy in this sequential treatment algorithm.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Systemic therapy of advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) usually involves doublet or triplet chemotherapy regimens (Conroy et al. 2011; Hoff et al. 2013). Of those the combination of 5-FU, folinic acid, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) represents a standard of care for the treatment of an advanced and/or metastatic systemic disease (Conroy et al. 2011; Conroy et al. 2018). If FOLFIRINOX is not an option for patients in need for systemic therapy of metastatic PDAC, the combination of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel can be considered as standard of care (Hoff et al. 2013). If therapy is started with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, the continuum of therapy beyond this decision is not entirely clear. Currently, two doublet-chemotherapy options might be considered, containing the drugs FOLFIRINOX consists of (Yoo et al. 2009): either 5-FU, folinic acid, oxaliplatin (OFF) (Oettle et al. 2014) or a combination of (nano-liposomal) irinotecan and 5-FU plus folinic acid (Nal-IRI-FF or FOLFIRI) (Ueno et al. 2020; Wang-Gillam et al. 2016). In clinical practice, the actual choice of therapy might involve existing toxicities and patients’ preferences- taking into account the differential profiles of these regimens concerning adverse events.
Beyond second-line therapy, no systemic therapy is established yet (Ducreux et al. 2015), although the remaining options (FOLFIRI or OFF, depending on the choice of second-line therapy) might be available if therapy is started with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.
Anzeige
The PANTHEON trial was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two established second-line therapy options (FOLFIRI vs. OFF) following gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, the trial explored the outcome of third-line therapy with the respective cross-over regimen.
Methods
Patients
Main inclusion criteria included: Unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas previously treated in the palliative setting with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, adequately documented recurrence and disease status after/with first-line therapy (best response, duration of treatment, time to progression, pre-existing polyneuropathy and other side effects), radiologically confirmed disease progression during first-line therapy and measurable reference cancer site(s) as defined by RECIST 1.1, and ECOG performance status 0–2.
Design of the trial and endpoints
The trial was designed by HO within the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO) working group of pancreatic cancer. The trial randomized patients in a 1:1 ratio into FOLFIRI vs OFF. After failure of these second-line regimens, patients fit to receive a third-line therapy crossed over to the respective other regimen (please refer to Fig. 1). Randomization into treatment arms was organized centrally using permuted blocks. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status 0–1 vs. 2, pre-existing neuropathy grade 0–1 vs. 2, progression-free survival of first-line therapy < six months vs. ≥ six months.
Fig. 1
Study design. FOLFIRI denotes irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid. OFF denotes 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin
The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of the randomized second-line therapy (FOLFIRI or OFF) as assessed as by the local investigators as time from enrolment to disease progression according to RECIST 1.1 or death. The aim of the trial was to demonstrate non-inferiority of FOLFIRI compared to OFF. The statistical design assumed a PFS with OFF of 3.0 months. A considerably shorter PFS (i.e. 2.0 months) was considered as an inferior outcome. With this non-inferiority margin of a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.5 (3/2 months), a power of 80% and a one-sided significance level of 2.5%, it was intended to recruit 204 patients to observe 196 events. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included overall survival (within study, measured from randomization), overall survival of the complete treatment sequence (including previous first-line therapy), safety (AEs/SAEs), progression-free survival during third line therapy (PFS3 = administration of first dose of third-line therapy to progression or death), Time to Failure of Strategy (TTFS = time from randomization to permanent study treatment discontinuation (second or third-line), as well as objective response rates according to RECIST 1.1. The trial is registered with EudraCT Nr. 2016–004640-11.
Anzeige
Statistical analysis
The pre-planned analysis of the primary endpoint (PFS) was prespecified to be analysed in a per-protocol (PP) population, defined as: no violation of inclusion/exclusion criteria, patient received at least 1 dosing-cycle (full or reduced dosing) of chemotherapy, documentation of a tumor assessment after start of study treatment/randomization, absence of other major protocol violations such as wrong treatment received. All data recorded in the eCRF describing the sample, the efficacy and the safety are analyzed descriptively. Event-related data like progression-free or overall survival are estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and compared using the logrank test and/or a Cox regression. The primary hypothesis of the trial are evaluated by calculation of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio in a univariate Cox model. In addition, a log-rank test on non-inferiority of the experimental arm is performed. All statistical analyses were done using Microsoft Excel, WinStat Version 2012.1.0.96 (R. Fitch Software, MA, USA), R Version 4.1.1 and SPSS 27, IBM. Data cut-off was April 28th 2022.
Trial conduct
All patients provided written informed consent prior to screening in the trial. Patients were recruited in 19 centres in Germany. The protocol was approved by the responsible ethics committees of the participating centres. A contract research organisation (CROLLL GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) was responsible for randomization, data management, monitoring and primary data analysis. The trial was conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Treatment
Biweekly FOLFIRI was irinotecan 180 mg/m2, folinic acid 400 mg/m2 (FA), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU): 400 mg/m2 bolus and 2400 mg/m2 (48 h). OFF was folinic acid 200 mg/m2 and 5-FU 2000 mg/m2 (24 h) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on days 8 and 22. OFF was repeated every 6 weeks.
Assessments
The study protocol defined tumor assessment as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging according to standard of care. Following initial imaging (within 28 days before randomization), re-assessments were scheduled every ten weeks until disease progression or death. Assessments were performed according to RECIST 1.1. In case of end of study therapy without progressive disease, further regular assessments were recommended. Adverse events were documented according to the grading of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCICTC-AE) from registration into the trial until the final study visit.
Role of the funding source
The legal funder (sponsor) of the trial was the AIO-Studien-gGmbH, Berlin Germany. Bristol Myers Squibb GmbH & Co. KGaA (Celgene) supported the trial with a research grant to the AIO-Studien-gGmbH and had no role in the design conduct and analysis of the trial but reviewed the manuscript prior to journal submission. DPM and HO had full access to all study data and had the final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Results
Patients and treatment
The PANTHEON trial randomized 63 patients between January 2018 and December 2020. In December 2020 the study was stopped as the recruitment rate was insufficient to guarantee recruitment until the full sample size. Of the 63 recruited patients, 60 patients formed the full analysis set (37 patients in the FOLFIRI second-line arm and 23 patients in the OFF second-line therapy arm). Of note, the reduced sample size obtained within this study impacted balancing of prognostic groups and thus the balance of the randomisation as stratified permutated block randomization was incomplete. Third-line therapy was administered in 28 patients (18 patients received OFF following FOLFIRI and 10 patients the vice versa sequence)—please refer to Fig. 2 for details. Characteristics of patients and tumors are summarized in Table 1. Median follow-up of the full analysis set from start of the reported first-line therapy was 10.6 months (range 5.3–33.4 months).
Fig. 2
Consort diagram. FOLFIRI denotes irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid. OFF denotes 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin
Progression-free survival of prior 1st-line therapy, n (%)
PFS < 6 months
17 (45.9)
9 (39.1)
PFS ≥ 6 months
20 (54.1)
14 (60.9)
Best response to prior 1st-line therapy, n (%)
Complete remission (CR)
2 (5.6)
0 (0)
Partial remission (PR)
16 (44.4)
9 (39.1)
Stable disease (SD)
11 (30.6)
7 (30.4)
Progressive disease (PD)
8 (22.2)
7 (30.4)
FOLFIRI denotes irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid. OFF denotes oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid. ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. PFS (Conroy et al. 2011) = reported PFS of previous first-line therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel
Study treatment duration
Of the initial 37 patients who received FOLFIRI as second-line therapy, 18 patients were consecutively exposed to OFF (48.6%), while the vice versa sequence was observed in 10 of the initial 23 patients with second-line OFF therapy (43%) who consecutively received FOLFIRI as second-line therapy.
Median treatment duration of second-line therapy with FOLFIRI was 2.8 (range 0.9–12.2) months, while 2.5 (range 0.9–8.7) months were observed in the OFF second-line arm.
Anzeige
Efficacy of study therapy, including the primary endpoint
The primary endpoint of the trial (progression-free survival of second-line therapy) was analyzed with 55 of 60 possible events. The median PFS with FOLFIRI was 2.4 (95% CI 2.3–2.6) months, compared to 2.4 (95% CI 2.2–2.7) months with OFF (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.42; P = 0.45). The progression-free survival of third-line therapy was comparable in both arms. The estimation of time-to-failure of strategy (TTF) trended to be more favourable with FOLFIRI-OFF as compared to the reverse sequence (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.41–1.20; P = 0.19). Overall survival was again similar in both arms of the trial when calculated from randomisation and also when including the previous first-line therapy; please refer to Fig. 3A–D for details.
Fig. 3
Kaplan–Meier estimates of the full analysis set for PFS, PFS3, TTFS and OS. Indicated hazard ratios derived from Cox regression testing. P-values derived from log rank tests. A Kaplan–Meier estimate of progression-free survival of second-line therapy (primary endpoint), B Kaplan–Meier estimate of progression-free survival of third-line therapy (secondary endpoint), C Kaplan–Meier estimate of time to failure of strategy (secondary endpoint), D Kaplan–Meier estimate of overall survival (secondary endpoint),
In this trial (both arms of the trial analyzed together), ORR was 5.0% with second-line therapy and 3.6% with third-line therapy. Disease control rates were 25% in second-line therapy and 14.3% in third-line therapy, please refer to Table 2 for details.
During second-line therapy, 18 of 37 patients in the FOLFIRI arm (48.6%) and 15 of 23 (65.2%) in the OFF arm experienced a serious adverse event of any grade—with or without relation to the respective drugs.
In both second-line therapy arms, adverse events were most frequently observed in terms of gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea (45.9% and 34.8% of patients in the FOLFIRI and OFF arm, respectively, and diarrhoea (40.5% and 47.8% of patients, respectively). However, only a minority of these advents was grade 3–4 and of all gastrointestinal events, only diarrhoea and nausea were reported with more than 10% frequency of grade 3–4 (both in the OFF arm: 13%)- please refer to Table 3 for details.
Table 3
Grade 1–4 adverse events of interest with onset during second-line therapy
FOLFIRI 2nd-line events, n | patients, n (%)
OFF 2nd-line
events, n | patients, n (%)
Grade 1–4 (N = 37) %
Grade 3–4 (N = 37) %
Grade 1–4 (N = 23) %
Grade 3–4 (N = 23) %
Anemia
12 | 7 (18.9)
5 | 4 (10.8)
10 | 4 (17.4)
2 | 1 (4.3)
Leukopenia
5 | 4 (10.8)
1 | 1 (2.7)
6 | 3 (13)
1 | 1 (4.3)
Neutropenia
5 | 2 (5.4)
2 | 1 (2.7)
2 | 2 (8.7)
0 | 0 (0)
Diarrhoea
20 | 15 (40.5)
3 | 3 (8.1)
20 | 11 (47.8)
3 | 3 (13)
Nausea
25 | 17 (45.9)
1 | 1 (2.7)
21 | 8 (34.8)
3 | 3 (13)
Stomatitis
5 | 5 (13.5)
0 | 0 (0)
6 | 3 (13)
0 | 0 (0)
Vomiting
15 | 11 (29.7)
0 | 0 (0)
10 | 5 (21.7)
0 | 0 (0)
Cachexia
1 | 1 (2.7)
1 | 1 (2.7)
0 | 0 (0)
0 | 0 (0)
Decreased appetite
2 | 2 (5.4)
0 | 0 (0)
4 | 4 (17.4)
0 | 0 (0)
Fatigue
19 | 16 (43.2)
1 | 1 (2.7)
19 | 10 (43.5)
1 | 1 (4.3)
General physical health deterioration
6 | 5 (13.5)
3 | 2 (5.4)
2 | 2 (8.7)
1 | 1 (4.3)
Oedema peripheral
6 | 5 (13.5)
0 | 0 (0)
2 | 2 (8.7)
0 | 0 (0)
Pain
3 | 3 (8.1)
1 | 1 (2.7)
10 | 5 (21.7)
2 | 2 (8.7)
Pyrexia
5 | 3 (8.1)
0 | 0 (0)
7 | 6 (26.1)
0 | 0 (0)
Hypokalemia
9 | 4 (10.8)
3 | 2 (5.4)
4 | 3 (13)
2 | 2 (8.7)
Dizziness
0 | 0 (0)
0 | 0 (0)
6 | 3 (13)
0 | 0 (0)
Peripheral sensory neuropathy
6 | 4 (10.8)
1 | 1 (2.7)
10 | 6 (26.1)
2 | 1 (4.3)
Dyspnoea
7 | 7 (18.9)
0 | 0 (0)
2 | 2 (8.7)
0 | 0 (0)
Alopecia
5 | 5 (13.5)
0 | 0 (0)
0 | 0 (0)
0 | 0 (0)
Embolisms
2 | 2 (5.4)
1 | 1 (2.7)
0 | 0 (0)
0 | 0 (0)
Hypertension
2 | 2 (5.4)
1 | 1 (2.7)
0 | 0 (0)
0 | 0 (0)
Adverse event terms were derived from the case report forms. All events are reported irrespective of whether they were reported as related to study treatment. Grade according to NCI-CTCAE = National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event
Anzeige
Discussion
The PANTHEON trial was designed with the objective to evaluate two different subsequent treatment strategies following first-line therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Unsatisfactory recruitment led to early termination of the trial. It might be speculated that this patient population is difficult to treat in study protocols and maybe also that homogenized criteria for the recruitment of a second-line study are hard to meet in metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Nevertheless, with 60 patients receiving active therapy in the trial, it might be concluded that both treatment option provided comparable efficacy in the trial.
The observed toxicities were more or less comparable in terms of frequency and reproduced the classic profiles of irinotecan vs. oxaliplatin-based treatment approaches. The overall frequency of oxaliplatin/irinotecan-related adverse events is in line with other gastrointestinal cancers receiving oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based regimens in pretreated patient cohorts (Oettle et al. 2014; Wang-Gillam et al. 2016; Lamarca et al. 2021; Bennouna et al. 2013; Lorenzen et al. 2022).
The overall efficacy data (median survivals) in the PANTHEON trial, for both classic PFS of second-line therapy as well as in terms of OS appear similar to the respective pivotal trials which established OFF and the NAPOLI regimen (Oettle et al. 2014; Wang-Gillam et al. 2016), suggesting that the selection of patients in the PANTHEON trial was comparable to existing data. Given the efficacy of second-line therapy in our trial, it might be argued if this treatment option provides a clinically meaningful advantage to the majority of patients and in turn this treatment choice requires critical discussions with patients. Moreover, efficacy of combination therapy in third-line therapy was even less evident, suggesting that this treatment regimens do not have a sufficient rationale and should be considered with great caution. In turn, these perspectives question the overall strategy of the trial to explore a three-line strategy. Of course, if first-line therapy is done with FOLFIRINOX (or with nano-liposomal irinotecan) (Conroy et al. 2011), consecutive second-line treatment is usually gemcitabine-based, although there is no substantial evidence for this sequenceTaking these data into account and also the lack of efficacy of third-line therapy, it might be hypothesized that sequential therapy of metastatic pancreatic cancer should be planned within the first two lines of therapy. If first-line therapy is started with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, second-line therapy with either oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based regimens might be considered the last potentially effective option. A novel option might be to integrate both regimens into the second-line therapy of PDAC by alternating OFF and FOLFIRI on the basis of promising reports from first-line trials (Carrato et al. 2022; Westphalen 2023).
Anzeige
A strength of this randomized trial might be the fact that it clearly suggests that initial therapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel does not enable sufficient therapy across three lines.
Limits of the trial include the sample size and the lacking power to definitely demonstrate or reject the underlying hypothesis of the study protocol. Moreover, the randomization process by permuted blocks with three stratification criteria in a small sample size led to unbalanced numbers in the study arms which may reduce the validity of the results in the smaller (OFF) arm.
Conclusion
This exploratory analysis of a terminated trial suggests that FOLFIRI and OFF have similar efficacy as second-line therapy of PDAC with comparable tolerability after failure of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. The frequency of patients receiving crossover third-line therapy and the frequency of grade 3–5 events were also comparable. However, the sequence of three doublet regimes starting with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel does not lead to satisfactory efficacy in second-line and even less in the third-line of systemic therapy. These findings suggest that either irinotecan (or nano-liposomal irinotecan) or oxaliplatin cannot be successfully integrated into a treatment algorithm starting with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.
Researchers should provide a scientifically sound proposal directed to „info@aio-studien-ggmbh.de" for approval to gain access to the requested data. Shared data are only to be used to achieve aims of the approved proposal.
Prior presentation
IPart of the data of this manuscript have been presented as poster presentation at the ESMO Annual Meeting 2022.
Informed consent
Information that will be considered for disclosure includes individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this article (text, tables, figures, and appendices). Additionally, study protocol, statistical analysis plan and analytic code can be made available. All data shared must be anonymised to protect the privacy of the patients who participated in the trial, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and in compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation and Good Clinical Practice (ICH/GCP).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sequential therapy of refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer with 5-FU/LV/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) vs. 5-FU/LV/oxaliplatin (OFF). The PANTHEON trial (AIO PAK 0116)
Verfasst von
Dominik Paul Modest
Volker Heinemann
Philipp Schütt
Stefan Angermeier
Mike Haberkorn
Oliver Waidmann
Ullrich Graeven
Kai Wille
Volker Kunzmann
Larissa Henze
Christian Constantin
Maike de Wit
Claudio Denzlinger
Alexej Ballhausen
Annika Kurreck
Ivan Jelas
Annabel Helga Sophie Alig
Arndt Stahler
Sebastian Stintzing
Helmut Oettle
Bennouna J, Sastre J, Arnold D et al (2013) Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(1):29–37CrossRefPubMed
Carrato A, Pazo-Cid R, Macarulla T et al (2022) Sequential nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine followed by modified FOLFOX for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer The SEQUENCE trial. J Clin Oncol 40:4022CrossRef
Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M et al (2011) FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 364(19):1817–1825CrossRefPubMed
Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M et al (2018) FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 379(25):2395–2406CrossRefPubMed
Ducreux M, Cuhna AS, Caramella C et al (2015) Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(Suppl 5):v56-68CrossRefPubMed
de la Fouchardiere C ea. Evaluation of gemcitabine and paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone after FOLFIRINOX failure or intolerance in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Results of the randomized phase III PRODIGE 65—UCGI 36—GEMPAX UNICANCER study. ESMO Congress 2022, LBA60.
Lamarca A, Palmer DH, Wasan HS et al (2021) Second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy versus active symptom control for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 22(5):690–701CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Lorenzen S, Thuss-Patience P, Pauligk C et al (2022) FOLFIRI plus ramucirumab versus paclitaxel plus ramucirumab as second-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma with or without prior docetaxel—results from the phase II RAMIRIS study of the German gastric cancer study group at AIO. Eur J Cancer 165:48–57CrossRefPubMed
Oettle H, Riess H, Stieler JM et al (2014) Second-line oxaliplatin, folinic acid, and fluorouracil versus folinic acid and fluorouracil alone for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer: outcomes from the CONKO-003 trial. J Clin Oncol 32(23):2423–2429CrossRefPubMed
Ueno M, Nakamori S, Sugimori K et al (2020) nal-IRI+5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV in post-gemcitabine metastatic pancreatic cancer: Randomized phase 2 trial in Japanese patients. Cancer Med 9(24):9396–9408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP et al (2013) Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med 369(18):1691–1703CrossRef
Wainberg ZA, Melisi D, Macarulla T et al (2023) NAPOLI-3: a randomized, open-label phase 3 study of liposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin + oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) versus nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). J Clin Oncol 41:661CrossRef
Wang-Gillam A, Li CP, Bodoky G et al (2016) Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 387(10018):545–557CrossRefPubMed
Westphalen CB (2023) FOOTPATH: a randomized, open-label phase-2 study of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU and folinic acid (NAPOLI) versus sequential NAPOLI and mFOLFOX6 versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in treatment-naïve metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPDAC). J Clin Oncol 41:4021CrossRef
Yoo C, Hwang JY, Kim JE et al (2009) A randomised phase II study of modified FOLFIRI 3 vs modified FOLFOX as second-line therapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 101(10):1658–63CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Eine Zusatztherapie mit Capivasertib kann das radiologisch bestimmte progressionsfreie Überleben von Männern mit metastasiertem hormonsensitivem Prostatakarzinom deutlich verlängern. Im Vergleich zu Placebo wurde in einer Phase-3-Studie ein Vorteil von 7,5 Monaten erzielt.
Ob Anspruch auf ein Lungenkrebs-Screening per Low-Dose-CT besteht, wird meistens über kategoriale Grenzwerte definiert. Effizienter und effektiver wäre es wohl, sich am individuellen Erkrankungsrisiko gemäß etablierter Scores zu orientieren. Das wird auch durch die deutsche HANSE-Studie belegt.
Interimsergebnisse der randomisierten CLL17-Studie stärken die Evidenzbasis für zeitlich limitierte Therapien bei zuvor noch nicht behandelten Personen mit chronischer lymphatischer Leukämie. Noch ist der Follow-up-Zeitraum indes recht kurz.
Zucker, Impfungen oder Deo begünstigen Mammakarzinomrezidive – solchen und anderen Fehlinformationen begegnen Brustkrebsbetroffene häufig, wie die Ergebnisse einer US-Umfrage nahelegen.
