ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2021
Clinical outcomes of first line FOLFIRINOX
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemotherapy for Older Adults with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Trends and Outcomes of Initial Palliative Chemotherapy in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer in Korea Based on National Health Insurance Service Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxelTherapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GN) are established first line therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). There are, however, no randomized controlled trials comparing FFX and GN in the first line setting and real-world data on their comparative effectiveness is limited. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with MPC who were treated with first line FFX and GN and to further characterize dose modifications, discontinuation rates due to treatment toxicity, and rates of hospitalizations while on treatment.
methodsWe manually abstracted data from the electronic medical records (EMR) system at Yale Smilow Hospital and Smilow Cancer Hospital Care Centers for patients with MPC treated with at least one cycle of first line FFX or GN from January 2011 to April 2019. Patients who received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant FFX or GN and adjuvant gemcitabine less than 6 months prior to metastatic recurrence were excluded. The median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsWe identified 363 patients for analysis; 269 (74%) patients were treated with FFX and 94 (26%) with GN. Median TTD was 4.8 (IQR, 2.3-8.0) months in the FFX group compared to 3.4 (IQR, 1.3-5.7) months in the GN group (P=0.0037). Median OS was 11.3 (95% CI: 10.7-12.9) months in the FFX group and 7.0 (95% CI: 6.0-8.7) months in the GN group (P<0.001). Initial dose modifications occurred in 264 (98%) and 86 (91%) of FFX and GN treated patients, respectively (P=0.001). While on treatment, 56 (60%) of GN-treated patients had at least one hospitalization vs. 110 (41%) in the FFX-group (P=0.002). Treatment was discontinued due to chemotherapy toxicity in 26 (10%) and 14 (15%) among the FFX and GN cohorts, respectively (P=0.275).
conclusionsPatients treated with first line FFX had increased survival and TTD compared to patients treated with GN despite increased dose modifications and similar rates of treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related toxicity. GN-treated patients were older and more likely to be hospitalized while on treatment. Further study evaluating comparative effectiveness between these two regimens is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.