Background: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by a poor survival rate, which can be improved by systemic treatment. Consensus on the most optimal first- and second-line palliative systemic treatment is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the use of first- and second-line systemic treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to failure (TTF) of first- and second-line treatment in metastatic PDAC in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: Patients with synchronous metastatic PDAC diagnosed between 2015 and 2018 who received systemic treatment were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. Results: The majority of 1,586 included patients received FOLFIRINOX (65%), followed by gemcitabine (18%), and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (13%) in the first line. Median OS for first-line FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, and gemcitabine monotherapy was 6.6, 4.7, and 2.9 months, respectively. Compared to FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel showed significantly inferior OS after adjustment for confounders (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02–1.41), and gemcitabine monotherapy was independently associated with a shorter OS and TTF (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.71–2.30 and HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.88–2.83, respectively). Of the 121 patients who received second-line systemic treatment, 33% received gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, followed by gemcitabine (31%) and FOLFIRINOX (10%). Conclusions: Based on population-based data in patients with metastatic PDAC, treatment predominantly consists of FOLFIRINOX in the first line and gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel in the second line. FOLFIRINOX in the first line shows superior OS compared with gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel.
Esther N. Pijnappel, Willemieke P.M. Dijksterhuis, Lydia G. van der Geest, Judith de Vos-Geelen, Jan Willem B. de Groot, Marjolein Y.V. Homs, Geert-jan Creemers, Nadia Haj Mohammad, Marc G. Besselink, Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven, Johanna W. Wilmink, and for the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group
Héctor G. van den Boorn, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Nadia Haj Mohammad, Maarten C.C.M. Hulshof, Suzanne S. Gisbertz, Bastiaan R. Klarenbeek, Marije Slingerland, Laurens V. Beerepoot, Tom Rozema, Mirjam A.G. Sprangers, Rob H.A. Verhoeven, Martijn G.H. van Oijen, Koos H. Zwinderman, and Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven
Background: Personalized prediction of treatment outcomes can aid patients with cancer when deciding on treatment options. Existing prediction models for esophageal and gastric cancer, however, have mostly been developed for survival prediction after surgery (ie, when treatment has already been completed). Furthermore, prediction models for patients with metastatic cancer are scarce. The aim of this study was to develop prediction models of overall survival at diagnosis for patients with potentially curable and metastatic esophageal and gastric cancer (the SOURCE study). Methods: Data from 13,080 patients with esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed in 2015 through 2018 were retrieved from the prospective Netherlands Cancer Registry. Four Cox proportional hazards regression models were created for patients with potentially curable and metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. Predictors, including treatment type, were selected using the Akaike information criterion. The models were validated with temporal cross-validation on their C-index and calibration. Results: The validated model’s C-index was 0.78 for potentially curable gastric cancer and 0.80 for potentially curable esophageal cancer. For the metastatic models, the c-indices were 0.72 and 0.73 for esophageal and gastric cancer, respectively. The 95% confidence interval of the calibration intercepts and slopes contain the values 0 and 1, respectively. Conclusions: The SOURCE prediction models show fair to good c-indices and an overall good calibration. The models are the first in esophageal and gastric cancer to predict survival at diagnosis for a variety of treatments. Future research is needed to demonstrate their value for shared decision-making in clinical practice.