@article{JGO1183,
author = {Parvin F. Peddi and May Cho and Jian Wang and Feng Gao and Andrea Wang-Gillam},
title = {Nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in refractory pancreatic adenocarcinoma},
journal = {Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology},
volume = {4},
number = {4},
year = {2013},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: The standard of care in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma is undefined beyond second line of treatment. There have been scant reports of benefit from nab-paclitaxel in patients with refractory pancreatic cancer.
Materials and methods: A retrospective review was carried out in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma at Siteman Cancer Center, who had received nab-paclitaxel monotherapy after experiencing disease progression on standard treatments. Nab-paclitaxel was given either two out of every three weeks or three out of every four weeks.
Results: Twenty patients were identified and included for data analysis. Median age was 63.5 years old. All patients had previously received gemcitabine, while 40% had also received FOLFIRINOX. Median number of prior lines of systemic treatment was 2. Patients were treated for a median of 15 weeks, with a range of 1 to 41.7 weeks. Median dose of nab-paclitaxel was 100 mg/m2 with range of 75-125 mg/m2. Best response imaging was available in 17 patients and 11 out of the 17 patients (64.7%) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months and overall survival (OS) were 5.2 months. Most common treatment related toxicities included grade 1 pneumonitis in five patients (25%), grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in three patients (15%), and dehydration resulting in hospitalization in one patient (5%).
Conclusions: Nab-paclitaxel monotherapy had acceptable level of toxicity in a heavily pretreated patient population with pancreatic cancer and appeared to provide a clinical benefit. This agent is worthy of further prospective studies to evaluate extent of benefit after standard therapies have failed.},
issn = {2219-679X}, url = {https://jgo.amegroups.org/article/view/1183}
}