• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.1281-1284
• /
• 2012

Background: Platinum-hased chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still considered the first choice, presenting a modest survival advantage. However, the patients eventually experience disease progression and require second-line therapy. While there are reliable predictors to identify patients receiving first-line chemotherapy, very little knowledge is available about the prognostic factors in patients who receive second-line treatments. The present study was therefore performed. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 107 patients receiving second-line treatments from August 2002 to March 2012 in the Dicle University, School of Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology. Fourteen potential prognostic variables were chosen for analysis in this study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify prognostic factors associated with survival. Result: The results of univariate analysis for overall survival (OS) were identified to have prognostic significance: performance status (PS), stage, response to first-line chemotherapy response to second-line chemotherapy and number of metastasis. PS, diabetes mellitus (DM), response to first-line chemotherapy and response to second-line chemotherapy were identified to have prognostic significance for progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariate analysis showed that PS, response to first-line chemotherapy and response to second-line chemotherapy were considered independent prognostic factors for OS. Furthermore, PS and response to second-line chemotherapy were considered independent prognostic factors for PFS. Conclusion: In conclusion, PS, response to first and second-line chemotherapy were identified as important prognostic factors for OS in advanced NSCLC patients who were undergoing second-line palliative treatment. Furthermore, PS and response to second-line chemotherapy were considered independent prognostic factors for PFS. It may be concluded that these findings may facilitate pretreatment prediction of survival and can be used for selecting patients for the correct choice of treatment.

• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.124-132
• /
• 2022

Background: Despite recent advances in first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer, standard treatment after the failure of initial chemotherapy has not been established. Hence, we aimed to retrospectively analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: We reviewed the clinical data of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who underwent palliative chemotherapy at Kosin University Gospel Hospital between January 2013 and October 2020. Results: Among 366 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received palliative chemotherapy, 104 (28.4%) underwent at least one cycle of second-line chemotherapy. The median age of the patients at the time of initiating second-line treatment was 62 years (interquartile range, 57-62 years), and 58.7% (61 patients) of them were male. The common second-line chemotherapy regimens were 5-fluorouracil (FU) plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (33 patients, 31.7%); gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (29, 27.9%), gemcitabine±erlotinib (13, 12.5%); and oxaliplatin and 5-FU/leucovorin (12, 11.5%). The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5-8.6 months) and 4.5 months (95% CI, 2.7-6.3 months), respectively. In a multivariate analysis, poor performance status (PS) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.247; p=0.021), metastatic disease (HR, 2.745; p=0.011), and elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels (HR, 1.939; p=0.030) at the beginning of second-line chemotherapy were associated with poor OS. Conclusion: The survival outcome of second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer remains poor. However, PS, disease extent (locally advanced or metastatic), and CEA level may help determine patients who could benefit from second-line treatment.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.16
• /
• pp.6799-6804
• /
• 2014

Background: Chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for the majority of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver mutations and many receive therapies beyond first-line. Second-line chemotherapy has been disappointing both in terms of response rate and survival and we know relatively little about the prognostic factors. Materials and Methods: One thousand and eight patients with advanced NSCLC who received second-line chemotherapy after progression were reviewed in Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, China, from September 2005 to July 2010. We analyzed the effects of potential prognostic factors on the outcomes of second-line chemotherapy (overall response rate, ORR; progression free survival, PFS; overall survival, OS). Results: The response and progression free survival of first-line chemotherapy affects the ORR, PFS and OS of second-line chemotherapy (ORR: CR/PR 15.4%, SD 10.1%, PD2.3%, p<0.001; PFS: CR/PR 3.80 months, SD 2.77 months, PD 2.03 months, p<0.001; OS: CR/PR 11.60 months, SD 10.33 months, PD 6.57 months, p=0.578, p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively). On multivariate analysis, better response to first-line therapy (CR/PR: HR=0.751, p=0.002; SD: HR=0.781, p=0.021) and progression within 3-6 months (HR=0.626, p<0.001), together with adenocarcinoma (HR=0.815, p=0.017), without liver metastasis (HR=0.541, p=0.001), never-smoker (HR=0.772, p=0.001), and ECOG PS 0-1 (HR=0.745, p=0.021) were predictors for good OS following second-line chemotherapy. Conclusions: Patients who responded to first-line chemotherapy had a better outcome after second-line therapy for advanced NSCLC, and the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy, period of progression, histology, liver metastasis, smoking status and ECOG PS were independent prognostic factors for OS.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.11
• /
• pp.4791-4795
• /
• 2015

Purpose: This study was conducted to observe the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed based chemotherapy in treating patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancers as first-line, second-line or third-line therapy. Materials and Methods: From May 2011 to January 2015, we recruited 29 patients with advanced breast cancer, 19 patients with advanced ovary cancer, 17 patients with advanced esophageal cancer,5 patients with advanced gallbladder cancer,5 patients with advanced cervical cancer and 1 patient with advanced tongue cancer in Jiangsu Cancer Hospital and Research Institute.All of them were pathologically confirmed and treated with pemetrexed based chemotherapy. After two cycles of treatment,efficacy and safety can be evaluated. Results: For pemetrexed based regimens,including 76 patients with 6 kinds of advanced cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. Complete remission represents CR, partial remission represents PR, stable disease represents SD, progressive disease represents PD. Among 29 patients with advanced breast cancer, 4 patients chose pemetrexed based regimens as second-line treatment,1 of them was PR,the other 3 got SD. The last 25 patients made use of this chemotherapy as third-line treatment, except one patient could not be assessed, 2 of them got PR,6 of them got SD,the remaining 16 of them finally were PD.19 patients with advanced ovary cancer,5 patients used this regimens as second-line treatment, 3 of them got PD,the remaining patients got SD, respectively. The last 14 patients made use of pemetrexed based regimens as third-line treatment,. RR (CR+PR) was 28.5%. Among 17 patients with advanced esophageal cancer, 2 patients made use of pemetrexed based regimens as first-line treatment,both of them got PR.4 of them used this chemotherapy as second-line regimen, except 2 patients could not be assessed,the remaining 2 was PD at last. The last 11 patients was third-line users, RR (CR+PR) was 18.2%. Among 5 patients with advanced gallbladder cancer, pemetrexed based regimens was used in 1 patient as first-line treatment and 1 patient as second-line treatment. The curative effect was SD and PD, respectively. 3 patients accepted pemetrexed based regimens as third-line treatment, 2 of them got PD as results and another was SD. Among 5 patients with advanced cervical cancer, just 1 patient adopted pemetrexed based regimens as first-line treatment, whose curative effect was PR.2 patients chose this chemotherapy regimens as second-line treatment. Both of them got PD as their consequence. The last 2 patients made use of the regimens as third-line treatment, the effect of them was PD and SD, respectively. The one who with advanced tongue cancer, pemetrexed based regimens was used as second-line treatment, and the consequence was PD. About 71.1% patients experienced bone marrow suppression. Among them, 5 patients reached 4 grade. Other toxicity of pemetrexed were neurotoxicity, fatigue, diarrhea, dysphagia and vomiting. No treatment related death occurred with pemetrexed-based treatment. Conclusions: Pemetrexed based chemotherapy has considerable effect in patients with advanced cancers such as breast cancer,esophageal cancer and ovary cancer. More randomly clinical trials are needed to verify the results.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.8
• /
• pp.3645-3649
• /
• 2014

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of third-line combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer that relapsed after primary and second-line CAB. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 52 patients who received first-, second-, and third-line CAB therapy (medical or surgical castration, plus steroidal antiandrogen of chlormadinone acetate, or nonsteroidal antiandrogen of flutamide or bicalutamide). For cumulative analysis, we searched the PubMed database and identified a total of 50 cases published in English. Including our cases, this provided a total of 102 cases for analysis. In our study cohort, 11 cases (21.2%) achieved more than 50% reduction of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) on initiation of third-line CAB. We found that third-line CAB with nonsteroidal antiandrogen after second-line CAB with steroidal antiandrogen exhibited favorable results, with a positive response in six of 13 patients (46.2%). Cumulative analysis findings were comparable. Regarding the timing of third-line CAB administration, 15 patients had started at a PSA equal to or less than 4.0 ng/ml, and eight of them (53.3%) showed a positive response to treatment, compared to only three of 37 patients (8.1%) whose PSA at the initiation of third-line therapy was higher than 4.0 ng/ml (p<0.001). We conclude that third-line CAB with nonsteroidal antiandrogen would be particularly useful for patients whose cancer progressed after second-line CAB with steroidal antiandrogen. The timing of treatment seems to be important because the higher the PSA at the start of third-line therapy, the lower the PSA response rate.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.11
• /
• pp.4567-4570
• /
• 2014

Background: This systemic analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed based chemotherapy in treating patients with metastatic breast cancer as first or second line chemotherapy. Methods: Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed based regimens on response and safety for patients with breast cancer were identified using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rate (RR) of treatment were calculated. Results: In first line pemetrexed based regimens, 10 clinical studies which including 513 patients with advanced breast cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. For second line pemetrexed based chemotherapy, 5 clinical studies which including 281 patients with advanced breast cancer were considered eligible. Systemic analysis suggested that, in all patients, pooled RR was 32.6% (167/513) in pemetrexed based first line regimens, and 13.9 % (39/281) in pemetrexed based second line regimens. Major adverse effects were neutropenia, leukopenia, fatigue, and anemia in pemetrexed based first line treatment; and lymphopenia, neutropenia, leukopenia, as well as anemia in second line chemotherapy. One treatment related death occurred with pemetrexed based second line treatment. Conclusion: This systemic analysis suggests that pemetrexed based first line regimens are associated with a reasonable response rate and acceptable toxicity, however with low response rate for treating patients with metastatic breast cancer when is used in the second line.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.5
• /
• pp.1993-1995
• /
• 2015

Purpose: This analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy in treating patients with small cell lung cancer. Methods: Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy for patients with small cell lung cancer were identified using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rates (RRs) of treatment were calculated. Results: In irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy, 4 clinical studies which including 155 patients with small cell lung cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. In all chemotherapy consisted of irinotecan with or without nedaplatin. Pooled analysis suggested that, in all patients, the pooled RR was 27.1% (42/155) in irinotecan based regimens. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and myelosuppression were the main side effects. No grade III or IV renal or liver toxicity was observed. No treatment related death occurred with the irinotecan based treatments. Conclusion: This systemic analysis suggests that irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy are associated with mild response rate and acceptable toxicity for patients with small cell lung cancer.

• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.59 no.10
• /
• pp.408-413
• /
• 2016

Purpose: This study investigated predictors of unresponsiveness to second-line intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment for Kawasaki disease (KD). Methods: This was a single-center analysis of the medical records of 588 patients with KD who had been admitted to Asan Medical Center between 2006 and 2014. Related clinical and laboratory data were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: Eighty (13.6%) of the 588 patients with KD were unresponsive to the initial IVIG treatment and received a second dose. For these 80 patients, univariate analysis of the laboratory results obtained before administering the second-line IVIG treatment showed that white blood cell count, neutrophil percent, hemoglobin level, platelet count, serum protein level, albumin level, potassium level, and C-reactive protein level were significant predictors. The addition of methyl prednisolone to the second-line regimen was not associated with treatment response (odds ratio [OR], 0.871; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.216-3.512; P=0.846). Multivariate analysis revealed serum protein level to be the only predictor of unresponsiveness to the second-line treatment (OR, 0.160; 95% CI, 0.028-0.911; P=0.039). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to determine predictors of unresponsiveness to the second dose of IVIG showed a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 72% at a serum protein cutoff level of <7.15 g/dL. Conclusion: The serum protein level of the patient prior to the second dose of IVIG is a significant predictor of unresponsiveness. The addition of methyl prednisolone to the second-line regimen produces no treatment benefit.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.17
• /
• pp.7859-7863
• /
• 2015

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine versus docetaxel in a second-line setting of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients previously treated with platin-based combination chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 57 patients treated with single agent gemcitabine or docetaxel in second-line setting of advanced NSCLC who received one prior platinum-based therapy. Results: The mean age was $56.7{\pm}8.39$ years with 55 (96.5%) males and two (3.5%) females. Forty of them received docetaxel and 17 gemcitabine. The mean number of chemotherapy cycles was $6.8{\pm}4.0$ in the gemcitabine group, while it was $4.6{\pm}3.0$ in the docetaxel group. Overall response rates were 8% and 12% (P=0.02) for gemcitabine and docetaxel, respectively. The median survival time was 22 versus 21 months for gemcitabine and docetaxel, respectively. The median times to progression were 8 and 5 months. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of incidence of adverse affects (40% vs 47.1%). All of the hematological side effects were grade 1/2. No major toxicity was encountered necessitating stopping the drug for either group. Conclusions: Treatment with gemcitabine demonstrated clinically equivalent efficacy with a significantly improved safety profile compared with those receiving docetaxel in the second-line setting for advanced NSCLC in this study. Based on these results, treatment with gemcitabine should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC.

• Journal of Gynecologic Oncology
• /
• v.29 no.6
• /
• pp.89.1-89.8
• /
• 2018

Objective: Highly effective chemotherapy for patients with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is associated with almost a 100% cure rate. However, 20%-30% of patients treated with chemotherapy need to change their regimens due to severe adverse events (SAEs) or drug resistance. We examined the treatment outcomes of second-line chemotherapy for patients with low-risk GTN. Methods: Between 1980 and 2015, 281 patients with low-risk GTN were treated. Of these 281 patients, 178 patients were primarily treated with 5-day intramuscular methotrexate (MTX; n=114) or 5-day drip infusion etoposide (ETP; n=64). We examined the remission rates, the drug change rates, and the outcomes of second-line chemotherapy. Results: The primary remission rates and drug resistant rates of 5-day ETP were significantly higher (p<0.001) and significantly lower (p=0.002) than those of 5-day MTX, respectively. Forty-seven patients (26.4%) required a change in their chemotherapy regimen due to the SAEs (n=16) and drug resistance (n=31), respectively. Of these 47 patients failed the first-line regimen, 39 patients (39/47, 82.9%) were re-treated with single-agent chemotherapy, and 35 patients (35/39, 89.7%) achieved remission. Four patients failed second-line, single-agent chemotherapy and eight patients (17.0%) who failed first-line regimens were treated with combined or multi-agent chemotherapy and achieved remission. Conclusions: Patients with low-risk GTN were usually treated with single-agent chemotherapy, while 20%-30% patients had to change their chemotherapy regimen due to SAEs or drug resistance. The second-line regimens of single-agent chemotherapy were effective; however, there were several patients who needed multiple agents and combined chemotherapy to achieve remission.