Patterns of care in metastatic pancreatic cancer: patient selection in clinical routine

Author:

Scheithauer Werner1,Putora Paul Martin23,Grünberger Birgit4,Eisterer Wolfgang5,Wöll Ewald6,Prager Gerald1,Schaberl-Moser Renate7,Greil Richard8,Glatzer Markus9ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine I, General Hospital of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland

3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Bern, Switzerland

4. Department of Internal Medicine, Haematology and Oncology, Landesklinikum Wiener Neustadt, Austria

5. Department of Internal Medicine and Oncology, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Austria

6. Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus St.Vinzenz Zams, Austria

7. Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Austria

8. Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University Medical University of Salzburg, Salzburg Cancer Research Institute-SCRI-LIMCR, and Cancer Cluster, Austria

9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacher Strasse 95, St. Gallen, 9007, Switzerland

Abstract

Background: The management of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is challenging, and the optimal treatment strategy is debated among experts. In an attempt to identify treatment decision criteria and to investigate variations in the first-line management of this disease, we performed an analysis of treatment algorithms among experts in the field of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to identify relevant criteria in the complex process of patient selection and decision making for the management of mPC patients. Methods: Experts from the ABCSG (Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group) Pancreatic Cancer Club were contacted and agreed to participate in this analysis. Eight experts from seven centers in Austria provided their decision algorithms for the first-line treatment of patients with mPC. Their responses were converted into decision trees based on the objective consensus methodology. The decision trees were used to identify consensus and discrepancies. Results: The final treatment algorithms included four decision criteria (performance status, age, comorbidities, and symptomatic disease) and six treatment options: mFOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine mono, 5-FU mono, gemcitabine/erlotinib, and best supportive care (BSC). Conclusions: We identified consensus for the treatment of young and fit patients with mFOLFIRINOX. With higher age and reduced performance status, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel was increasingly used. For patients with Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 4, BSC was the treatment of choice. Among experts, different decision criteria and treatment options are implemented in clinical routine. Despite multiple options in current recommendations, a consensus for specific recommendations was identified.

Funder

AstraZeneca Schweiz

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Gastroenterology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3