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
. 2023 Jun 19;23(1):212.
doi: 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w.

Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Affiliations

Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Fausto Petrelli et al. BMC Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background: In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine based regimens such as in combination with albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM + nab-PTX). After progression, multiple regimens including NALIRI + 5-FU and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU-based oxaliplatin doublets (OFF, FOLFOX, or XELOX), or 5-FU-based monotherapy (FL, capecitabine, or S-1) are considered appropriate by major guidelines. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of different treatment strategies tested as second-line regimens for patients with mPDAC after first-line gemcitabine-based systemic treatment.

Methods: Randomized phase II and III clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they were published or presented in English. Trials of interest compared two active systemic treatments as second-line regimens until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We performed a Bayesian NMA with published hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different second-line therapies for mPDAC. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were grade 3-4 toxicities. We calculated the relative ranking of agents for each outcome as their surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA score meant a higher ranking for efficacy outcomes.

Results: A NMA of 9 treatments was performed for OS (n = 2521 patients enrolled). Compared with 5-FU + folinic acid both irinotecan or NALIRI + fluoropyrimidines had a trend to better OS (HR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.21-2.75 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.31-1.85). Fluoropyrimidines + folinic acid + oxaliplatin were no better than the combination without oxaliplatin. The analysis of treatment ranking showed that the combination of NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid was most likely to yield the highest OS results (SUCRA = 0.7). Furthermore, the NMA results indicated that with the highest SUCRA score (SUCRA = 0.91), NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid may be the optimal choice for improved PFS amongst all regimens studied.

Conclusions: According to the NMA results, NALIRI + 5-FU, and folinic acid may represent the best second-line treatment for improved survival outcomes in mPDAC. Further evidence from prospective trials is needed to determine the best treatment option for this group of patients.

Keywords: 5-fluorouracil; Chemotherapy; Gemcitabine; NALIRI; Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; Second-line therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the included studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Network graph for OS. The width of the edge is proportional to the number of comparisons
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bayesian comparisons for OS of various treatments vs. the referent standard arm
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Network graph for PFS. The width of the edge is proportional to the number of comparisons
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Bayesian comparisons for PFS of various treatments vs. the referent standard arm

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Stat 2021 CACancer JClin. 2021;71:7–33. - PubMed
    1. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011923. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1691–703. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1304369. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Petrelli F et al. FOLFIRINOX-based neoadjuvant therapy in borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analytical review of published studies.Pancreas. 2015 May;44(4):515–21. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000314. - PubMed
    1. Pusceddu S et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2019 Apr 5;11(4):484. doi: 10.3390/cancers11040484. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms