Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar;19(2):75-85.
Epub 2018 Mar 30.

Perioperative and Survival Outcomes Following Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine Abraxane in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Brandon C Chapman  1 , Ana Gleisner  1 , Devin Rigg  2 , Wells Messersmith  3 , Alessandro Paniccia  1 , Cheryl Meguid  1 , Csaba Gajdos  1 , Martin D McCarter  1 , Richard D Schulick  1 , Barish H Edil  4
Affiliations

Perioperative and Survival Outcomes Following Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine Abraxane in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Brandon C Chapman et al. JOP. 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Context: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer to facilitate surgical resection.

Objective: To compare progression free survival and overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with those receiving gemcitabine/abraxane.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: University of Colorado Hospital from 2012-2016.

Participants: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Interventions: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/abraxane.

Outcome measures: Perioperative outcomes, progression free survival, and overall survival were compared between groups. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was applied to evaluate survival outcomes.

Results: We identified 120 patients: 83 (69.2%) FOLFIRINOX and 37 (30.8%) gemcitabine/abraxane. The FOLIFRINOX group was younger and had a lower ECOG performance status (p<0.05). Patients in the FOLFIRINOX group were more likely to undergo surgical resection compared to gemcitabine/abraxane (66.3% vs. 32.4%, p=0.002). Among all patients, median follow up was 16.9 months and FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved PFS (15.3 vs. 8.2 months, p=0.006), but not overall survival (23.5 vs. 18.7 months, p=0.228). In these patients, insulin-dependent diabetes was associated with a worse progression free survival and overall survival and surgical resection was protective. Among surgically resected patients, median follow up was 21.1 months and there was no difference in progression free survival (19.5 vs. 15.1 months) or overall survival (27.4 vs. 19.8 months) between the FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/abraxane groups, respectively (p>0.05). Insulin-dependent diabetes and a poor-to-moderate pathologic response was associated with worse progression free survival and overall survival.

Conclusion: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX may improve progression free survival by increasing the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection. Improved understanding of the role for selection bias and longer follow up are needed to better define the impact of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX on overall survival.

Keywords: Disease-Free Survival; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatic cancer; Survival; adult.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Authors are declared that there is no conflict of Interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a). PFS among all patients on unadjusted and (b). adjusted analysis without surgical resection variable and, (c). adjusted analysis with surgical resection variable. (d). OS among all patients on unadjusted and (e). adjusted analysis without surgical resection variable, and (f). adjusted analysis with surgical resection variable. Gem-Abx gemcitabine and abraxane
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a). PFS among surgically resected patients on unadjusted and (b). adjusted analysis. (c). OS among surgically resected patients on unadjusted and (d). adjusted analysis. Gem-Abx gemcitabine and abraxane
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30. - PubMed
    1. Network NCC. NCCN guidelines version 1.2017. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. 2017
    1. Ryan DP, M H. In: Initial chemotherapy and radiation for nonmetastatic locally advanced unresectable and borderline resectable exocrine pancreatic cancer. Goldberg RMAS, Willett CG, Savarese DMF, editors. Up To Date.
    1. Shaib WL, Ip A, Cardona K, Alese OB, Maithel SK, Kooby D, et al. Contemporary Management of Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer. Oncologist. 2016;21:178–187. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources