A narrative review of Safety management of 1 L platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance olaparib in BRCA mutated advanced pancreatic cancer
Review Article

A narrative review of Safety management of 1 L platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance olaparib in BRCA mutated advanced pancreatic cancer

Jiayu Yao1,2, Yongchao Wang1,2, Tiebo Mao1,2, Yiyi Liang1,2, Xiao Zhang1,2, Haiyan Yang1,2, Jiong Hu1,2, Feng Jiao1,2, Jiujie Cui1,2, Liwei Wang1,2

1Department of Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; 2State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: L Wang, J Cui; (II) Administrative support: H Yang, J Hu, F Jiao, J Cui, L Wang; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: J Yao; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: J Yao; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: All authors; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Correspondence to: Liwei Wang. Department of Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. Email: lwwang2013@163.com.

Objective: We aimed to review the safety management and efficacy of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen to help clinicians improve first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance olaparib to treat patients with advanced PC with BRCA mutations.

Background: FOLFIRINOX has relatively high efficacy among all the chemotherapy regimens for advanced pancreatic carcinoma (PC) patients. However, the combination of drugs is often associated with a high incidence of adverse reactions, and safety concerns are the primary reasons limiting its clinical use. In recent years, through the adjustment of drug dosage and administration route, the toxicity of FOLFIRINOX has been reduced while its clinical effect has been maintained. Also, the empirical use of prophylactics in the chemotherapy cycle can reduce chemotherapy-related serious adverse reactions. All these methods have established a good foundation for the maintenance of olaparib.

Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) were searched using the terms’ pancreatic cancer’, ‘folfirinox’, ‘parp inhibitor’, ‘chemotherapy’, and ‘adverse reaction’ from 2005 through to March 2021.

Conclusions: The historical evidence suggested that modified FOLFIRINOX and maintenance olaparib could significantly improve the therapeutic effect and reduce the toxicity. It also provides some insights for clinicians to choose the most suitable regimen for each patient.

Keywords: Pancreatic cancer; FOLFIRINOX; adverse reactions; olaparib

Submitted Dec 21, 2020. Accepted for publication Apr 02, 2021.

doi: 10.21037/tcr-20-3478

Introduction

Background

Pancreatic carcinoma (PC) is one of the leading causes of death from cancer, with 4.59 million new cases and 4.32 million cancer-related deaths worldwide in 2018 (1). The estimated 5-year survival rate is less than 5% (2). The incidence of PC in China is increasing and is the 10th most prevalent of all malignant tumors and the 6th leading cause of cancer-related death (3). Although surgical resection is curative, up to 80–85% of patients have unresectable disease at the time of diagnosis due to locally advanced and distant metastases (4). Therefore, for patients with advanced PC, chemotherapy is the standard treatment to reduce symptoms, prolong survival, and improve life quality. According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), FOLFIRINOX (or modified FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) chemotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for metastatic PC (5,6).

The POLO study in 2019 (7) led first-line maintenance therapy for PC into a new era, with a poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. For BRCA1/2-mutated metastatic PC that had not progressed during at least 16 weeks of continuous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib 300 mg twice daily significantly prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS) time to 7.4 months, while in the placebo group, the PFS was 3.8 months (HR 0.53, P=0.004). This marked improvement was attributed to not only maintenance of olaparib but also to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. For germline BRCA-mutated advanced PC, platinum-based chemotherapy’s superior survival benefits have been reported in many studies compared to non-platinum-based chemotherapy (8-10). As a result, compared with gemcitabine/nab-P therapy, platinum-based chemotherapy, especially the FOLFIRINOX regimen, and gemcitabine plus platinum-based chemotherapy are more suitable for the treatment of advanced PC with BRCA mutation. Specifically, after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors has become the most effective treatment for BRCA-mutated advanced PC.

Objective

Although FOLFIRINOX has demonstrated remarkable clinical benefits in both BRCA-mutated and unscreened advanced PC patients, the combination of drugs has often been associated with toxicity accumulation and safety concerns, limiting the clinical use of this drug regimen. According to a meta-analysis comparing chemotherapies for advanced PC, the FOLFIRINOX regimen had relatively high toxicity in both hematological and non-hematological areas (11). The main reason was the superposition and accumulation of toxicity of the 3 drugs, which makes the side effects of the combined regimen very diverse, and can sometimes lead to serious adverse effects. It is known that the most common side effects of oxaliplatin and irinotecan are gastrointestinal reactions such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Also, all 3 drugs can cause myelosuppression, leading to coagulation dysfunction, infection, and other fatal problems. Recent studies on modified FOLFIRINOX found that the toxicity could be reduced, but the clinical effect was maintained by adjusting drug dosage and the administration route. Also, prophylactics’ empirical use in the chemotherapy cycle could reduce chemotherapy-related serious adverse events (AEs). Well-controlled AEs with modified FOLFIRINOX would establish a good foundation for maintenance olaparib. This article reviewed the safety management and efficacy of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen to help clinicians improve first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance olaparib to treat patients with advanced PC with BRCA mutations. We present the following article in accordance with the Narrative Review reporting checklist (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr-20-3478).

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) were searched using the terms’ pancreatic cancer’, ‘folfirinox’, ‘parp inhibitor’, ‘chemotherapy’, and ‘adverse reaction’ from 2005 through to March 2021. We included literature that discussed FOLFIRINOX and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment, as well as PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy. We excluded studies that only focused on mechanisms without clinical data.

First-line platinum-based chemotherapy

FOLFIRINOX regimen

Based on the significant efficacy of FOLFIRINOX in the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 study (12) in 2010, FOLFIRINOX has been an option for treating patients with metastatic PC and good performance status. The FOLFIRINOX regimen consisted of oxaliplatin at a dose of 85 mg/m2, leucovorin at 400 mg/m2, irinotecan at 180 mg/m2, and fluorouracil at 400 mg/m2 administered by intravenous bolus, followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of 2,400 mg/m2 over 46 hours every 2 weeks. The PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 study reported a median overall survival (OS) of 11.1 months in the FOLFIRINOX group compared to 6.8 months in the gemcitabine group [hazard ratio (HR)for death 0.57, P<0.001], and the difference was statistically significant. However, the survival gain came at a cost. The FOLFIRINOX group was reported to have a higher incidence of serious AEs, including neutropenia (45.7%), vomiting (14.5%), diarrhea (12.7%), thrombocytopenia (9.1%), sensory neuropathy (9.0%), and febrile neutropenia (5.4%). However, the consensus was reached that FOLFIRINOX should be used in patients <65 years old with a very good performance status (13), the tolerability of the maximum dose remains a concern that limits its clinical use.

Modified FOLFIRINOX

Although the FOLFIRINOX regimen’s efficacy has been proven, the safety and tolerability remain of concern. In 2013, Mahaseth et al. first published the result that the elimination of bolus 5-FU and the use of hematopoietic growth factor could improve the safety profile without compromising the activity of FOLFIRINOX (14). In 2018, Conroy et al. further demonstrated that adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer (15). Nowadays, an increasing number of studies have modified the FOLFIRINOX regimen to reduce toxicity without compromising efficacy. In this review, a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen was defined as an adjustment of the oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and/or fluorouracil dosage and the administration route. Studies with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX were excluded. As no studies have specifically evaluated modified FOLFIRINOX in BRCA-mutated PC patients, 7 modified FOLFIRINOX regimens as first-line systemic therapy studies in unscreened advanced PC were included in this review (Table 1). The total number of patients that were finally enrolled in all included studies ranged from 18 to 81. Despite the between-group differences, overall conclusions could be readily made.

Table 1

Summary of FOLFIRINOX and modified FOLFIRINOX studies

Trials Number of patients FOLFIRINOX and modified FOLFIRINOX regimens Grade 3–4 hematologic AEs Grade 3–4 non-hematologic AEs   Concomitant medication Efficacy
FU IV bolus FU IV infusion Irinotecan Leucovorin Oxaliplatin Neutropenia Thrombocytopenia Others Fatigue Sensory neuropathy Diarrhea Others Median PFS (months) Median OS (months)
FOLFIRINOX (12) 342 MPC, ECOG 0–2 points 400 mg/m2 2,400 mg/m2 over a 46 h period 180 mg/m2 400 mg/m2 85 mg/m2 45.7% 9.1% Febrile neutropenia 5.4%; anemia 7.8% 23.6% 9.0% 12.7% Vomiting 14.5%; elevated level of ALT 7.3%; thrombo-embolism 6.6%   G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) 42.5% 6.4 11.1
Stein et al. (16) 44 MPC, ECOG 0–1 point 300 mg/m2 Unchanged 135 mg/m2 Unchanged Unchanged 12.2% 9.5% Anemia 5.4%; Febrile neutropenia 4.1% 12.2% 2.7% 16.2% Elevated level of ALT 4.1%; thromboembolism 4.1%; vomiting 2.7%   Prophylactics: anti-emetic agents (palonosetron and aprepitant), dexamethasone, growth factors 6.1 10.2
Mahaseth
et al. (14)		 36 MPC Omitted Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged 3.0% 4.0% None 13.0% 4.0% 13.0% Nausea/ vomiting 8%; allergic reaction 5%; mucositis 3%; infection 4%   Prophylactics: G-CSF (pegfilgrastim), atropine, anti-diarrheal medications 8.5 8
Ghorani et al. (17) 15 MPC; 3 LAPC Omitted Unchanged 130–135 mg/m2 Unchanged Unchanged 0 0 Febrile neutropenia 5.6% 5.6% 0 16.7% Vomiting 27.8%; nausea 22.2%; fever 16.7%; dysarthria 5.6%   Prophylactics: G-CSF (pegfilgrastim), anti-emetic agents (ondansetron), dexamethasone; treatment: domperidone, ondansetron, aprepitant and loperamide Stage IV 9.3 Stage IV 7.2
Vivaldi et al. (18) 81 MPC; 56 LAPC, Stage III or IV Omitted 2,800 mg/m2 over a 48 h period 150 mg/m2 200 mg/m2 Unchanged 35.7% 5.8% Febrile neutropenia 0.7%; anemia 2.9% 1.4% 2.2% 8.0% Nausea 7.3%; vomiting 3.6%; stomatitis 6.5%; anorexia 2.9%; liver toxicity 4.4%; thromboembolism 2.9%   G-CSF 20.4% Stage III 11; Stage IV 5.8 LAPC 14.9; MPC 10.8
Omitted 3,200 mg/m2 over a 48 h period 165 mg/m2 200 mg/m2 Unchanged
Yoshida et al. (19) 21 MPC Omitted Unchanged 150 mg/m2 200 mg/m2 Unchanged 83.9% 6.5% Febrile neutropenia 16.1% 0 9.7% 6.5% Anorexia 6.5%; vomiting 3.2%; nausea 3.2%   Prophylactics: anti-emetic agents (aprepitant and granisetron), dexamethasone 7.0 14.9
Li et al. (20) 62 MPC, ECOG > 1 point Omitted Unchanged 135 mg/m2 No change 72.25 mg/m2 29.0% 4.8% Anemia 8.1% 0 0 0 Infection 4.8%; elevated level of ALT 14.5%; no vomiting or thromboembolism   Prophylactics: anti-emetic agents (ondansetron, azasetron and metoclopramide), anti-acid agents (omeprazole), dexamethasone; G-CSF 69.4%; IL-1 8.1%; TPO 3.2% 7.0 10.3
Wang et al. (21) 65 MPC, ECOG 0–2 points Omitted Unchanged 150 mg/m2 200 mg/m2 65 mg/m2 12.3% 0 Anemia 1.5% 0 0 6.2% Vomiting 1.5%; elevated level of ALT 1.5%   G-CSF was used when grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred 5.77 11.6

FU, fluorouracil; IV, intravenous; MPC, metastatic pancreatic cancer; LAPC, locally advanced pancreatic cancer; BRPC, borderline resectable pancreatic cancer; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; G-CSF, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor; IL-1, interleukin 11; TPO, thrombopoietin.

First, the modified FOLFIRINOX regimen’s efficacy in these studies was comparable to full-dose FOLFIRINOX. In the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 study, all patients were metastatic and treatment-naïve. Similarly, most of the patients that were enrolled in the studies mentioned above were metastatic. As discussed above, the median OS of the FOLFIRINOX group in PRODIGE 4 was 11.1 months, and in the modified FOLFIRINOX studies, the median OS was 8–14.9 months. It should be noted that PRODIGE 4 enrolled only ECOG 0–1 patient, but these studies included patients whose ECOG ranged between 0–2. The different trial design suggests that modified FOLFIRINOX may be a better choice for patients with relatively poor general status. Second, decreasing the fluorouracil dose or omitting the intravenous fluorouracil bolus significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia. At the same time, it also relieved non-hematological AEs such as fatigue and neuropathy. Stein et al. (16) demonstrated that a reduction of irinotecan to 135 mg/m2 and bolus fluorouracil to 300 mg/m2 resulted in significantly decreased grade 3–4 neutropenia (from 45.7% to 12.2%), fatigue (nearly half), and sensory neuropathy (from 9.0% to 2.7%). Mahaseth et al. (14) reported a reduced incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia of 3.0% without bolus fluorouracil. Ghorani et al. (17) omitted bolus fluorouracil and reduced irinotecan to 130–135 mg/m2 and found a further reduction in the incidence of serious neutropenia and sensory neuropathy, even reaching zero. Vivaldi et al. (18) pointed out that the fluorouracil bolus and higher doses of irinotecan were related to the hematological toxicities of FOLFIRINOX. Third, besides omitting the fluorouracil bolus and decreasing the irinotecan dose, reduction of the oxaliplatin dose was associated with a lower incidence of serious fatigue and neuropathy. Both Li et al. (20) and Wang et al. (21) omitted bolus fluorouracil, reduced the irinotecan dose, and adjusted the oxaliplatin dose to 72.25 mg/m2 and 65 mg/m2, respectively, and no grade 3–4 fatigue or sensory neuropathy was detected.

On the other hand, the empirical use of prophylactics in the chemotherapy cycle is also an effective method to reduce chemotherapy-related AEs. In the studies of Stein et al. (16) and Li et al. (20), anti-emetic drugs were used, and the incidence of grade 3–4 vomiting was reduced from 14.5% to 2.7% or even to zero. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can stimulate the proliferation, differentiation, and activation of neutrophils and, therefore, be used to prevent and treat leucopenia hematopoietic dysfunction and myelodysplastic syndrome caused by radiotherapy or chemotherapy. It also plays a role in the prevention of possible infection complications associated with leucopenia. Thus, adding G-CSF to the modified FOLFIRINOX regimen can help prevent the development of severe neutropenia. In the study of Yoshida et al. (19), G-CSF was not administered prophylactically, and the incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was as high as 83.9%. The significantly low incidence of serious neutropenia in the studies of Mahaseth et al. (14) and Ghorani et al. (17) (3.0% and 0, respectively) was apparently associated with the use of prophylactic G-CSF.

For some clinicians, gemcitabine/nab-P therapy is considered safer and has been used to treat advanced PC patients who were unable to tolerate FOLFIRINOX. As there is no randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) that can compare the 2 therapies directly, the efficacy and safety of the 2 therapies have not been unequivocally established. However, 2 phase III clinical studies by Von Hoff et al. (22) and Tehfe et al. (23) found that the safety profile of gemcitabine/nab-P therapy was similar to that of modified FOLFIRINOX. In these studies, advanced PC was treated with nab-P 125 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks, and common grade 3–4 AEs including neutropenia (38% and 22%, respectively), fatigue (17% and 34%, respectively), and sensory neuropathy (17% and 25%, respectively) were reported. Since modified FOLFIRINOX has greater efficacy in BRCA-mutated advanced PC, reduced toxicity will surely help more patients achieve the best possible clinical benefits.

Gemcitabine plus platinum-based chemotherapy

Based on its mechanism, patients with BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations are more sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy (24), and in real-world clinical practice, some other platinum-based chemotherapies are available apart from FOLFIRINOX. Among them, gemcitabine plus cisplatin has been recommended by the NCCN guidelines as the first-line chemotherapy for advanced PC with BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations. O’Reilly et al. (25) treated BRCA/PALB2-mutated stage III to IV PC patients with gemcitabine 600 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 25 mg/m2 intravenously in cycles every 3 weeks and reached a median OS of 16.4 months without grade 4 hematological toxicity. Grade 3 hematological AEs included neutropenia (30%), thrombocytopenia (9%), and anemia (35%). Like FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus cisplatin can also improve BRCA1/2 or PALB2-mutated advanced PC, with AEs being more controllable. Hence, this regimen has good prospects for clinical application. Also, another platinum-based chemotherapy—gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin—also exhibited good tolerability (26). Further studies will focus on its clinical benefits in PC patients with BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations, which will be a promising research direction in the future.

Safety profile of maintenance olaparib in BRCA mutated advanced PC

The total dosage of multi-drug chemotherapy for patients with advanced PC is usually limited, and patients often need to receive maintenance therapy (27). Recently, the FDA has approved olaparib for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated metastatic PC. Thus, after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib should be one of the standard treatments for BRCA-mutated advanced PC in the clinic.

The most commonly reported AEs produced by olaparib were nausea/vomiting, fatigue, and anemia. These AEs were typically mild or moderately severe, and in most cases, were short-term in nature, self-limiting, and did not require discontinuation of treatment (28,29). In the POLO study (7) of maintenance olaparib in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and metastatic PC, the most common grade 3–4 AE in the olaparib group was anemia (11%), and it did not differ significantly when compared with the placebo group. AEs were usually managed by dose interruption or a reduction in dosage. Similar findings were also reported in the study of Kaufman et al. (30), which demonstrated that olaparib monotherapy could be used in BRCA1/2-mutated patients with advanced PC progression during gemcitabine treatment (including 65% platinum-based chemotherapy). The tumor response rate was 21.7%. Anemia was the most common grade ≥3 AE (17.4%), and only 9.7% of patients required AE-related olaparib dose modifications. All the data indicated that olaparib was reasonably well tolerated.

The management of olaparib-related AEs in advanced PC can be compared to olaparib’s treatment experience in other tumors. A meta-analysis of RCTs (31), including 9 studies of advanced ovarian, gastric, prostate, lung, and breast cancer, showed that olaparib treatment was associated with an increased risk of fatigue and anemia. Although the incidence of olaparib-related serious fatigue and anemia was low, it is important to manage these AEs effectively as they have a major impact on patients’ quality of life. To control serious fatigue, clinicians should investigate other possible causes of fatigue and provide supportive care, including conservation of energy and exercise. If fatigue cannot be controlled by supportive care, olaparib should be interrupted until the symptoms are ≤ grade 1, then restarted at the same or a lower dose. As for the management of serious anemia, a monthly assessment of complete blood counts is necessary. Dose interruptions can manage toxicities. However, it is noteworthy that blood transfusions can manage treatment-related anemia without interruption of treatment (28).

In general, the majority of olaparib-related AEs were mild and occurred early during treatment. Patient counseling regarding the side effects of olaparib can help them be prepared for the potential AEs and thereby continue with the treatment—as the alternative provides a bleak outlook. Also, clinicians should detect and control serious AEs related to olaparib treatment as early as possible to maximize the effect of maintenance therapy.

Discussion

First-line platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance olaparib further improves the clinical benefits for BRCA1/2-mutated advanced PC patients. For platinum-based chemotherapy, the modified FOLFIRINOX regimen maintains the remarkable clinical effects of FOLFIRINOX and reduces the frequency of the occurrence of hematological and non-hematological AEs. Other platinum-based chemotherapies, for example, gemcitabine plus cisplatin/oxaliplatin, have controllable AEs and good tolerability. After first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib for treating patients with advanced PC with BRCA mutations is both effective and safe, given that the incidence of serious AEs is low.

However, this review has some limitations. First, the topic was mainly focused on clinical trials and manifestations. The mechanisms that underlie the adverse reactions have not been mentioned. Second, we only listed the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus platinum-based chemotherapy but failed to illustrate which regimen was better or more suitable for a specific population. The major reason is that there is a lack of sufficient clinical trial data to conclude.

Thus, in addition to BRCA mutations, more studies are needed to screen out reliable biomarkers to benefit patients who are sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors and have fewer side effects. Additionally, more clinical trials are needed to find a more effective and safe regimen as a first-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients.

With the further study of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for PC, the treatment-related AEs will be better controlled, and greater benefits will be brought to patients with advanced PC and BRCA mutations

Conclusions

In conclusion, BRCA1/2-mutated advanced PC patients benefited from platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance olaparib. Among all the platinum-based chemotherapies, modified FOLFIRINOX was proven to have clinical efficacy and could reduce adverse reactions. Furthermore, other platinum-based chemotherapies such as gemcitabine combined with cisplatin or oxaliplatin also showed clinical benefits and controllable side effects. Although this review provides evidence of feasible clinical application regimens, further studies are still needed to help make better clinical decisions. For example, precision medicine requires clinicians to make decisions based on each individual’s specific situation, and we still lack evidence regarding the best regimens and dosages in different races and regions. More trials are needed to focus on patient-reported outcomes besides efficacy and toxicity evaluated by the standard clinical guidelines and equipment. Ultimately, our goal is to help patients live longer and help them live better.

Acknowledgments

This article was edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style by the highly qualified native English speaking editors C. Betlazar-Maseh and J. Chapnick at AME Publishing Company.

Funding: This work was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (81572315 and 81874048) (to Liwei Wang), and by Shanghai “Rising Stars of Medical Talent” Youth Development Progreamm[2019]72 (to Jiujie Cui).

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the Narrative Review reporting checklist. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr-20-3478

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr-20-3478). Dr. Cui reports grant from “Rising Stars of Medical Talent” Youth Development Programme [2019]72 of Shanghai, China. Dr. Wang reports grant 81572315 and 81874048 (to Liwei Wang) from National Natural Science Foundation of China. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, et al. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res 2014;74:2913-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Zheng RS, Sun KX, Zhang SW, et al. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 2019;41:19-28. [Report of cancer epidemiology in China, 2015]. [PubMed]
  4. Malik NK, May KS, Chandrasekhar R, et al. Treatment of locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer: a 10-year experience. J Gastrointest Oncol 2012;3:326-34. [PubMed]
  5. Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (Version 1.2020). National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2020.
  6. CSCO. Guidelines of Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) Pancreatic Cancer. 1 ed. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2019.
  7. Golan T, Hammel P, Reni M, et al. Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;381:317-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Golan T, Kanji ZS, Epelbaum R, et al. Overall survival and clinical characteristics of pancreatic cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 2014;111:1132-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Rebelatto TF, Falavigna M, Pozzari M, et al. Should platinum-based chemotherapy be preferred for germline BReast CAncer genes (BRCA) 1 and 2-mutated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2019;80:101895. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Shahda S, Timms KM, Ibrahim AA, et al. Homologous Recombination Deficiency in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Response to Chemotherapy. JCO Precis Oncol 2018; [Crossref]
  11. Liu GF, Li GJ, Zhao H. Efficacy and Toxicity of Different Chemotherapy Regimens in the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis. J Cell Biochem 2018;119:511-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1817-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Glatzer M, Horber D, Montemurro M, et al. Choice of first line systemic treatment in pancreatic cancer among national experts. Pancreatology 2020;20:686-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Mahaseth H, Brutcher E, Kauh J, et al. Modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with improved safety and maintained efficacy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pancreas 2013;42:1311-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M, et al. FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2395-406. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Stein SM, James ES, Deng Y, et al. Final analysis of a phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 2016;114:737-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Ghorani E, Wong HH, Hewitt C, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Modified FOLFIRINOX for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A UK Single-Centre Experience. Oncology 2015;89:281-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Vivaldi C, Caparello C, Musettini G, et al. First-line treatment with FOLFOXIRI for advanced pancreatic cancer in clinical practice: Patients' outcome and analysis of prognostic factors Int J Cancer 2016;139:938-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Yoshida K, Iwashita T, Uemura S, et al. A multicenter prospective phase II study of first-line modified FOLFIRINOX for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer. Oncotarget 2017;8:111346-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Li X, Ma T, Zhang Q, et al. Modified-FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer: A prospective study in Chinese population. Cancer Lett 2017;406:22-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Wang ZQ, Zhang F, Deng T, et al. The efficacy and safety of modified FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy for Chinese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Cancer Commun (Lond) 2019;39:26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. 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. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Tehfe M, Dowden S, Kennecke H, et al. nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Canadian Subgroup Analysis of the Phase 3 MPACT Trial. Adv Ther 2016;33:747-59. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Blair AB, Groot VP, Gemenetzis G, et al. BRCA1/BRCA2 Germline Mutation Carriers and Sporadic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2018;226:630-7 e1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. O'Reilly EM, Lee JW, Zalupski M, et al. Randomized, Multicenter, Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin With or Without Veliparib in Patients With Pancreas Adenocarcinoma and a Germline BRCA/PALB2 Mutation. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:1378-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Louvet C, Labianca R, Hammel P, et al. Gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a GERCOR and GISCAD phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3509-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Yang F, Jin C, Fu DL, et al. Modified FOLFIRINOX for resected pancreatic cancer: Opportunities and challenges. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:2839-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Friedlander M, Banerjee S, Mileshkin L, et al. Practical guidance on the use of olaparib capsules as maintenance therapy for women with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2016;12:323-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Ledermann JA, Harter P, Gourley C, et al. Quality of life during olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 2016;115:1313-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Kaufman B, Shapira-Frommer R, Schmutzler RK, et al. Olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:244-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  31. Ruiz-Schutz VC, Gomes LM, Mariano RC. det al. Risk of fatigue and anemia in patients with advanced cancer treated with olaparib: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2019;141:163-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Yao J, Wang Y, Mao T, Liang Y, Zhang X, Yang H, Hu J, Jiao F, Cui J, Wang L. A narrative review of Safety management of 1 L platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance olaparib in BRCA mutated advanced pancreatic cancer. Transl Cancer Res 2021;10(5):2488-2495. doi: 10.21037/tcr-20-3478

Article Options

Download Citation

Share