Prognostic Factors for Risk Stratification of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Who Were Treated with Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy

Inkeun Park; Seung Joon Choi; Young Saing Kim; Hee Kyung Ahn; Junshik Hong; Sun Jin Sym; Jinny Park; Eun Kyung Cho; Jae Hoon Lee; Yong Ju Shin; Dong Bok Shin

doi:10.4143/crt.2015.250

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 48(4); 2016 > Article

Original Article Prognostic Factors for Risk Stratification of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Who Were Treated with Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy: Inkeun Park, MD¹, Seung Joon Choi, MD, PhD², Young Saing Kim, MD¹, Hee Kyung Ahn, MD¹, Junshik Hong, MD¹, Sun Jin Sym, MD, PhD¹, Jinny Park, MD, PhD¹, Eun Kyung Cho, MD, PhD¹, Jae Hoon Lee, MD, PhD¹, Yong Ju Shin, BSPH³, Dong Bok Shin, MD, PhD^1,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2016;48(4):1264-1273.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2015.250
Published online: March 23, 2016

¹Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea

²Department of Radiology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea

³Department of Preventive Medicine, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

Correspondence: Dong Bok Shin, MD, PhD Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, 21 Namdong-daero 774beon-gil, Namdong-gu, Incheon 21565, Korea
Tel: 82-32-460-8371 Fax: 82-32-460-2391 E-mail: dbs@gilhospital.com

*Inkeun Park and Seung Joon Choi contributed equally to this work.

• Received: July 13, 2015 • Accepted: March 14, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

11,737 Views
226 Download
41 Web of Science
41 Crossref
45 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
The aim of this study was to verify prognostic factors including sarcopenia in patients with recurrent or metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.
Materials and Methods
Medical records and computed tomography scan of consecutive patients treated with palliative gemcitabine-based chemotherapy from 2008 to 2014 were reviewed. The lumbar skeletal muscle index at third lumbar spine level was computed, and together with clinicolaboratory factors, univariate and multivariable analyses for overall survival (OS) were performed.
Results
A total of 88 patients were found. Median age was 65 years, and male patients were predominant (67.0%). Most patients had initially metastatic disease (72.7%), and gemcitabine monotherapy was administered in 29 patients (33.0%) while gemcitabine plus erlotinib was administered in 59 patients (67.0%). Seventy-six patients (86.3%) had sarcopenia. With a median follow-up period of 44.3 months (range, 0.6 to 44.3 months), median OS was 5.35 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.11 to 6.59). In univariate and multivariable analysis, high carcinoembryonic antigen level (hazard ratio [HR], 4.18; 95% CI, 1.95 to 8.97; p < 0.001), initially metastatic disease (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.55 to 7.32; p=0.002), sarcopenia (HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.20 to 7.36; p=0.019), neutrophilia (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.27 to 6.79; p=0.012), and high lactate dehydrogenase level (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.07 to 3.58; p=0.029) were identified as independent prognostic factors for OS.
Conclusion
Five independent prognostic factors in patients with recurrent or metastatic pancreatic cancer who received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were identified. These findings may be helpful in prediction of prognosis in clinical practice and can be used as a stratification factor for clinical trials.
Key words: Pancreatic neoplasms, Gemcitabine, Drug therapy, Sarcopenia, Prognosis

Introduction

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with approximately 330,400 deaths in 2012 [1]. The majority of patients with pancreatic cancer present with locally advanced or metastatic disease, and less than 20% of patients can proceed with curative intent surgery [2]. The prognosis of unresectable or metastatic disease is extremely poor, as the median overall survival (OS) of patients is only 6 to 12 months even in the clinical trial setting [3-6], and 5-year OS rate of all-stage pancreatic cancer is under 10%, which did not change from 1993 until 2012 in Korea [7].

Gemcitabine became standard first line chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent pancreatic cancer after survival benefit was confirmed compared to 5-fluorouracil in a randomized phase III trial [3]. As of 2015, the efficacy of several agents in pancreatic cancer, including gemcitabine and erlotinib combination, gemcitabine and nanoalbumin paclitaxel combination, and a combination chemotherapy regimen consisting of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX), has been demonstrated [4-6]. FOLFIRINOX prolonged median OS from 6.8 months with gemcitabine to 11.1 months [5]; however, considerable toxicities preclude their dissemination in real world practice. Because most patients present with systemic manifestations of the disease including asthenia, anorexia, and weight loss [2], gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is still the most widely used first-line chemotherapy regimen [8].

Cachexia, which is prevalent in pancreatic cancer even in the resectable stage [9], has been shown to cause worsened prognosis and has also been associated with impairment of physical function, increased psychological distress, and low quality of life [9,10]. Sarcopenia, involuntary loss of skeletal muscle mass and/or strength, has recently been acknowledged as the major component of cancer cachexia [11]. Association of sarcopenia and survival in advanced pancreatic cancer has been reported in several studies [12-14]; however, these studies are heterogeneous in definition of cachexia and sarcopenia, patient population, and treatment. In addition, in survival analyses, clinically relevant factors including metastatic organ, laboratory values, and performance status were missed in these articles.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors including sarcopenia in patients with recurrent or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.

Materials and Methods

The medical records of consecutive patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Republic of Korea from March 2008 to March 2014 were screened for the study using a prospectively maintained pancreas-biliary cancer database. Among this population, the selection criteria for analysis were as follows: patients who had histologically or cytologically proven metastatic or recurrent pancreatic adenocarcinoma, adequate quality of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan within 4 weeks of initiation of chemotherapy, and underwent systemic treatment consisting of gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus erlotinib. Patients with ampulla of Vater cancer, distal common bile duct cancer, or neuroendocrine carcinoma of the pancreas were excluded.

Clinicopathological data included age, sex, height, weight, recent weight loss (involuntary weight loss of more than 5% over past 6 months), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), tumor histology, differentiation, baseline laboratory values (complete blood count with differential count and serum chemistry), serum tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA] and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 [CA19-9]), disease status (recurrent of metastatic), metastatic site, previous treatment history, chemotherapy regimen, chemotherapy response, survival status and date of administration of chemotherapy and the last follow-up. Response evaluation was performed retrospectively according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors ver. 1.1 using follow-up radiographic images obtained every 6-8 weeks during treatment. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gachon University Gil Medical Center.

1. Measurement and definition of sarcopenia

A radiologist (S.J.C) with extensive experience in abdominal imaging study identified a single axial image at the level of the third lumbar vertebrae (L3) on which both transverse processes were fully observed. The skeletal muscle at L3 level includes the rectus abdominus; internal, external, and lateral obliques; psoas; quadratus lumborum; and erector spinae muscles. The muscle boundaries were drawn manually using the area-measuring tool on the Picture Archiving Communication System (Infinitt PACS, Seoul, Korea). Cross-sectional areas (cm²) were computed automatically by summing tissue pixels and multiplying by pixel surface area. Image analysis was performed by one investigator (S.J.C.) who was blinded to patient outcomes. The lumbar skeletal muscle index (SMI) was calculated by normalizing skeletal muscle area by height (m²) and reported as cm²/m². For classification of patients as sarcopenic versus non-sarcopenic, a cutoff value was adopted, which was calculated based on a Korean population study consisting of healthy men and women aged 20-39 from the Fourth Korean National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys (KNHANES IV) conducted in 2008-2009 [15]. As the KNHANES IV survey used appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM), which is measured using dualenergy X-ray absorptiometry to define a cutoff value of sarcopenia, the calculated lumbar SMI (cm²/m²) value was converted into ASM/height² (kg/m²) using the following formula.

Appendicular skeletal muscle/height² (kg/m²)=0.11×[skeletal muscle area at L3 using CT/height² (cm²/m²)]+1.17 [16]

Class I sarcopenia was indicated by definition in participants whose height- or weight-adjusted ASM was from 1 to 2 standard deviations (SD) below the mean for young adults, and class II sarcopenia was indicated by definition in participants whose height- or weight-adjusted ASM was below 2 SD [17]. By KNHANES IV survey data, mean ASM/height² ±SD (kg/m²) was 8.42±0.92 for men and 6.18±0.79 for women. Cutoff value for class I and class II sarcopenia was 7.50 kg/m² for men and 5.38 kg/m² for women, and 6.58 kg/m² for men and 4.59 kg/m² for women, respectively [15].

2. Statistical analyses

The primary outcomes of interest were OS, defined as the time from the date of initiation of the first-line chemotherapy to the date of death from any cause. Patients who were alive at last follow-up or lost to follow-up were censored at the date of the last follow-up. Patient characteristics were summarized using descriptive methods, and survival analyses were performed by Kaplan-Meier estimate. Continuous clinical and laboratory variables were dichotomized for analytical convenience. The cutoff point for dichotomizing laboratory data was reference values for each variable in our institution. For analysis of associations between sarcopenia and clinicolaboratory factors, Student’s t test was used for continuous variables and Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables. Univariate analyses for OS were performed using log-rank test, and subsequent multivariable analysis with Cox proportional hazard model was performed for factors that were significant in univariate analysis. Forward stepwise selection method was used for the prognostic model for OS. If there were missing data, statistical analyses were performed with complete case analyses, in which patients without complete data on the required variables were excluded from particular analyses. The assumption of proportional hazards and linearity for the Cox proportional hazard model was evaluated by log minus log survival plot and by scattered plot between martingale residual and linear predictor score, respectively. Goodness of fit for the final model was assessed by calculating the likelihood ratio test. The reliability of the predictors for prognosis was finally assessed using a bootstrap resampling technique with 1,000 samples [18,19]. For each sample, analysis was performed using a stepwise Cox proportional hazard model. If the final stepwise model variables occur in a majority (> 50%) of the bootstrap models, the original final stepwise regression model can be judged as stable. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and SAS ver. 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), and p < 0.05 (two-sided) was considered statistically significant in both univariate and multivariable analysis.

Results

1. Patient characteristics

Eighty-eight patients were included in analysis. Baseline characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 65 years (range, 34 to 83 years), and male patients were predominant (59 patients, 67.0%). Twenty-four patients (27.3%) had recurrent disease, while 64 (72.7%) had initially metastatic disease. Lymph node (64.8%), liver (60.2%), and peritoneum (27.3%) were the most common site of metastasis, in order. Gemcitabine alone and gemcitabine plus erlotinib were used for first-line treatment in 29 patients (33.0%) and 59 patients (67.0%), respectively. Response to treatment in 82 evaluable patients was partial response, stable disease, or progressive disease in four patients (4.9%), 45 patients (54.9%), or 33 patients (40.2%).

2. Sarcopenia and related anthropometric measures

Data on sarcopenia and related factors are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Seventy-six patients (86.3%) had any degree of sarcopenia consisting of class 1 sarcopenia (20 patients, 22.7%) and class 2 sarcopenia (56 patients, 63.6%). Age was not associated with sarcopenia, as mean age was 65.5 in sarcopenic patients and 63.3 in non-sarcopenic patients (p=0.452). However, sarcopenia was more prevalent in men (96.6 % in male vs. 65.5% in female), particularly class 2 sarcopenia (84.7% vs. 20.7%, p < 0.001). As expected, sarcopenia was prevalent in underweight patients. Proportions of sarcopenia patients were 100% (31 patients out of 31) in patients with body mass index (BMI) less than 20 kg/m², 85.7% (42 out of 49) with BMI between 20 and 25 kg/m², and 37.5% (3 out of 8) with BMI 25 kg/m² or higher (p < 0.001). However, sarcopenia was not associated with recent weight loss (p=0.283).

3. OS and univariate analysis for OS

With a median follow-up period of 44.3 months (range, 0.6 to 44.3 months), median OS for all patients was 5.35 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.11 to 6.59) (Fig. 1). Results of univariate analyses for OS are shown in Table 4. Initially metastatic disease (p < 0.001), poor ECOG PS (p=0.044), sarcopenia (p=0.026), liver metastasis (p=0.015), peritoneal metastasis (p=0.028), bone metastasis (p=0.007), anemia (p=0.024), neutrophilia (p < 0.001), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (p=0.011), hypoalbuminemia (p < 0.001), C-reactive protein elevation (p=0.029), elevated CEA (p ≤ 0.001), and elevated CA19-9 (p=0.010) were statistically significant.

4. Multivariable analysis for OS and prognostic model

Variables with p < 0.05 in univariate analysis were selected for entry into the multivariable analysis. In the multivariable analysis (Table 5), elevated CEA (p < 0.001), initially metastatic disease (p=0.02), sarcopenia (p=0.019), neutrophilia (p=0.012), and elevated LDH (p=0.029) showed statistical significance and thus were considered independent poor prognostic factors for OS. In internal validation using a bootstrap resampling technique, elevated CEA (bootstrap frequency, 90.6%), initially metastatic disease (96.6%), sarcopenia (62.7%), neutrophilia (78.2%), and elevated LDH (78.7%) were all reliable prognostic factors. For the clinical application, a prognostic score was calculated based on the hazard function derived from the five factors identified in the Cox proportional hazard model. The score was calculated as follows: 0.43×(0, CEA within normal limitation; 1, CEA elevation)+0.67×(0, LDH within normal limitation; 1, LDH elevation)+1.08×(0, absence of neutrophilia; 1, presence of neutrophilia)+1.09×(0, absence of sarcopenia; 1, presence of sarcopenia)+1.21×(0, recurrent disease; 1, initially metastatic disease). The individual prognostic score values for the patients ranged from 0 to 5.48, with a median value of 2.30. The patients were then categorized according to three groups based on prognostic scores (33 percentile and 66 percentile): the favorable risk group had a prognostic score ≤ 2.18 (n=25), the intermediate risk group had a prognostic score of > 2.18 but ≤ 3.07 (n=26), and the poor risk group had a prognostic score > 3.07 (n=26). The resulting Kaplan-Meier curves for the three groups indicated marked differences in survival (p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). Median OS for the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups was 11.04 months (95% CI, 8.14 to 13.93), 5.36 months (95% CI, 3.02 to 7.70), and 2.17 months (95% CI, 0.40 to 3.93), respectively. Six-month OS rates were 88%, 50%, and 12%, and 1-year OS rate was 32%, 8%, and 0%, respectively.

Discussion

In this study, we found five independent prognostic factors in patients with recurrent or metastatic pancreatic cancer who received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy: elevated CEA, initially metastatic disease, sarcopenia, neutrophilia, and elevated LDH. In internal validation using a bootstrap resampling technique, all of those factors were reliable prognostic factors. In addition, we proposed a prognostic stratification model using these five factors, which showed a markedly different survival rate for each risk group categorized by prognostic score.

In management of patients with cancer, a well validated prognostic model has an important role in predicting life expectancy, guiding treatment selection, stratifying clinical trial enrollment, analyzing results of clinical studies, and educating patients and their families. Unfortunately, there is no well validated and widely accepted prognostic model for routine application in everyday practice or clinical trial for pancreatic cancer. As published data on prognostic factors for pancreatic cancer consist of heterogeneous status of disease, i.e., curatively resected, recurrent after curative resection, initially metastatic, locally advanced unresectable, or locally advanced borderline resectable, it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion from previous reports. For example, the authors of a literature review found 36 prognostic factor studies reporting a total of 34 possible prognostic factors for advanced pancreatic cancer patients [20].

In the current study, elevated CEA, initially metastatic disease, sarcopenia, neutrophilia, and elevated LDH were statistically significant adverse prognostic factors. These prognostic factors are readily available to treating physicians before chemotherapy, and we expect that their use will aid in clinical decision making and risk stratification.

While CA19-9 is the most widely known tumor marker in pancreatic cancer, a role of CEA in pancreatic cancer is controversial. In the current study, both CA19-9 and CEA were statistically significant prognostic factors in univariate analysis, but only CEA remained significant after multivariable analysis with a Cox proportional hazard model. Some authors reported a prognostic role of CA19-9 for metastatic pancreatic cancer [21,22], but others reported that CEA was more important than CA19-9 [23,24], like our study. Serum level of LDH has been thought to correlate with tumor burden and reflect rapid tumor growth. LDH is a well-established prognostic factor for some cancers including lymphoma and renal cell carcinoma. However, in pancreatic cancer, the role of serum LDH level is poorly defined. To our knowledge, three studies reported serum LDH as an independent prognostic factor for metastatic pancreatic cancer [20,25,26].

Sarcopenia is a syndrome characterized by progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength with a risk of adverse outcomes including physical disability, poor quality of life, and death [27]. The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People recommends use of normative (healthy young adults) rather than other predictive reference populations, with cutoff points at two SDs below the mean reference value [27]. Because the “normative healthy young adult population” is heterogeneous according to ethnicity, geographic region, or nation, we used a cutoff point deduced from KNHANES IV data [15] instead of the cutoff point for a Western population [11].

Routine measurement of muscle area and calculation of SMI or ASM is inconvenient in a clinical practice setting, and a domestic normative cutoff value might not be available for some regions. However, weight itself is not precise enough for detection of cancer cachexia, as overweight or obese populations often harbor occult, severe pre-existing muscle depletion and prognosis of sarcopenic obesity patients is poorer than that of non-sarcopenic obesity patients [28]. Indeed, in the current study, BMI showed no prognostic significance in univariate analysis (p=0.952). In addition, recent weight loss, defined as weight loss > 5% over the past 6 months in the absence of simple starvation [11], is subjective as it is dependent on patients’ memory. In our study, sarcopenia did not show a statistically significant association with weight loss (p=0.283). Therefore, development of a simple and objective tool for measurement of cachexia and sarcopenia is required to assist physicians in adoption of sarcopenia in clinical practice.

The current study has some limitations. First, this analysis is based on retrospective data from small patient population, thus biases inherent to retrospective studies could not be completely avoided. Second, only patients with metastatic or recurrent disease treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were included. Although uniform inclusion criteria might make this analysis more homogeneous, we could not confirm the prognostic role of the current prognostic model in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer or patients who underwent other therapies such as fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or nanoalbumin paclitaxel. A methodologically robust, well-powered prognostic model for advanced pancreatic cancer should be developed in the future.

Conclusion

In summary, five independent prognostic factors in patients with recurrent or metastatic pancreatic cancer who received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were identified, and a prognostic model consisting of these factors was proposed. This prognostic model can be helpful in prediction of prognosis in clinical practice and can be used as a stratification factor for clinical trials, if confirmed in future validation in a larger population.

NOTES

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2015R1C1A1A01054452).

Fig. 1.

Kaplan-Meier curve for overall survival. With a median follow-up period of 44.32 months, median overall survival was 5.35 months (95% confidence interval, 4.11 to 6.59).

Fig. 2.

Kaplan-Meier curve for overall survival according to prognostic grouping. Median overall survival for the favorable (blue line), intermediate (red line), and poor risk groups (green line) was 11.04 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.14 to 13.93), 5.36 months (95% CI, 3.02 to 7.70), and 2.17 months (95% CI, 0.40 to 3.93), respectively (p < 0.001).

Table 1.

Baseline patient characteristics

Characteristic	No. (%) (n=88)
Age, median (range)	65 (34-83)
Sex
Male	59 (67.0)
Female	29 (33.0)
Primary pancreatic tumor site
Head	45 (51.1)
Body	25 (28.4)
Tail	18 (20.5)
Differentiation
Well differentiated	2 (2.3)
Moderately differentiated	35 (39.8)
Poorly differentiated	17 (19.3)
Cytology	34 (38.6)
ECOG PS
0	6 (6.8)
1	55 (62.5)
2	27 (30.7)
Disease status
Recurrent	24 (27.3)
Initially metastatic	64 (72.7)
Diabetes mellitus	26 (29.5)
Weight loss	20 (22.7)
Biliary drainage	11 (12.5)
Previous therapy
Pancreatectomy	35 (39.8)
Adjuvant therapy	17 (19.3)
Sites of metastases
Lymph node	57 (64.8)
Liver	53 (60.2)
Peritoneum	24 (27.3)
Lung	11 (12.5)
Bone	10 (11.4)
No. of metastasized organs
1	28 (31.8)
2	38 (43.2)
3	15 (17.0)
4	7 (8.0)
CA19-9, median (range, U/mL)	215.00 (1.26-62,803.00)
CEA, median (range, ng/mL)	3.31 (0.11-298.30)
First-line chemotherapy
Gemcitabine monotherapy	29 (33.0)
Gemcitabine+erlotinib	59 (67.0)

ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Table 2.

SMI, ASM, and sarcopenia of patients

Variable	Overall (n=88)	Male (n=59)	Female (n=29)
BMI (kg/m²)	21.3±3.0	21.0±2.7	21.9±3.3
SMI (cm²/m²)	39.5±7.6	40.8±7.5	36.8±6.9
ASM (kg/m²)	5.5±0.8	5.7±0.8	5.2±0.8
Sarcopenia	76 (86.3)	57 (96.6)	19 (65.5)
Class 1 sarcopenia	20 (22.7)	7 (11.9)	13 (44.8)
Class 2 sarcopenia	56 (63.6)	50 (84.7)	6 (20.7)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%). SMI, skeletal muscle index; ASM, appendicular skeletal muscle mass; BMI, body mass index.

Table 3.

Association of clinicolaboratory factors with sarcopenia

Variable	Sarcopenia (n=76)	No sarcopenia (n=12)	p-value
Age (yr)	63.3±9.6	65.5±9.1	0.452
Sex
Male	57 (75.0)	2 (16.7)	< 0.001
Female	19 (25.0)	10 (83.3)
Disease status
Recurrent	22 (28.9)	2 (16.7)	0.5
Initially metastatic	54 (71.1)	10 (83.3)
Weight loss
Present	19 (25.0)	1 (8.3)	0.283
Absent	57 (75.0)	11 (91.7)
BMI (kg/m²)
< 20	31 (40.8)	0	< 0.001
20-25	42 (55.3)	7 (58.3)
> 25	3 (3.9)	5 (41.7)
ECOG PS
0-1	54 (71.1)	7 (58.3)	0.501
2	22 (28.9)	5 (41.7)
Neutrophilia
Present	10 (13.3)	1 (8.3)	0.704
Absent	65 (86.7)	11 (91.7)
Hypoalbuminemia
Present	10 (13.3)	0	0.345
Absent	65 (86.7)	12 (100)
LDH elevation
Present	20 (28.2)	4 (36.4)	0.723
Absent	51 (71.8)	7 (63.6)
CA19-9 elevation
Present	52 (70.3)	7 (58.3)	0.505
Absent	22 (29.7)	5 (41.7)
CEA elevation
Present	31 (44.3)	0	0.003
Absent	39 (55.7)	12 (100)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%). BMI, body mass index; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Table 4.

Log-rank test for overall survival

Variable	No. of patients		Median OS (95% CI)	p-value
Variable	Death	Total	Median OS (95% CI)	p-value
Age
Under median	44	47	4.90 (4.06-5.73)	0.327
Over median	38	40	6.54 (3.48-9.59)
Sex
Male	56	59	5.26 (4.44-6.07)	0.104
Female	26	28	5.98 (3.42-8.54)
Primary site
Head	42	44	5.98 (3.72-8.24)	0.191
Body	24	25	4.90 (4.31-5.49)
Tail	16	18	5.16 (3.59-6.73)
Disease status
Recurrent	21	24	10.12 (7.44-12.80)	< 0.001
Metastatic	61	63	4.73 (3.52-5.95)
First-line regimen
Gemcitabine	29	29	5.98 (3.38-8.58)	0.323
Gemcitabine+erlotinib	53	58	5.26 (4.36-6.16)
ECOG PS
0-1	57	61	7.13 (4.08-10.18)	0.044
2	25	26	3.42 (1.20-5.63)
Sarcopenia
No	10	11	9.27 (4.87-13.66)	0.026
Yes	72	76	5.16 (4.46-5.86)
BMI (kg/m²)
< 20	29	31	5.36 (3.96-6.75)	0.952
20-24.9	46	49	4.63 (3.28-5.98)
≥ 25	8	8	7.13 (3.35-10.91)
LN metastasis
No	28	31	6.24 (3.99-8.50)	0.113
Yes	54	56	4.73 (3.69-5.78)
Liver metastasis
No	31	34	8.21 (5.63-10.80)	0.015
Yes	51	53	4.73 (3.53-5.93)
Lung metastasis
No	72	76	5.36 (3.81-6.90)	0.697
Yes	10	11	5.36 (0.00-11.03)
Peritoneal metastasis
No	59	63	6.24 (4.20-8.29)	0.028
Yes	23	24	4.67 (2.65-6.68)
Bone metastasis
No	73	78	5.98 (4.65-7.31)	0.007
Yes	9	9	4.50 (1.91-7.10)
Anemia
No	33	37	7.33 (4.94-9.72)	0.024
Yes	49	49	4.73 (4.01-5.45)
Neutrophilia
No	71	75	6.24 (4.80-7.69)	< 0.001
Yes	11	11	1.18 (0.00-2.67)
Thrombocytosis
No	70	74	5.39 (3.93-6.84)	0.391
Yes	12	12	3.52 (0.00-7.48)
LDH elevation
No	53	57	6.24 (4.70-7.78)	0.011
Yes	24	24	3.25 (0.57-5.93)
ALT elevation
No	61	64	5.98 (4.35-7.61)	0.107
Yes	22	23	2.73 (1.08-4.37)
ALP elevation
No	53	56	6.54 (4.41-8.67)	0.172
Yes	30	31	4.50 (2.24-6.76)
Hypoalbuminemia
No	72	76	6.18 (4.58-7.78)	< 0.001
Yes	10	10	2.14 (0.86-3.41)
CRP elevation
No	25	27	8.18 (6.34-10.02)	0.029
Yes	45	45	3.91 (2.27-5.55)
CEA elevation
No	48	50	8.51 (6.12-10.90)	< 0.001
Yes	30	31	3.42 (1.98-4.85)
CA19-9 elevation
No	23	26	7.13 (2.70-11.56)	0.010
Yes	58	59	4.90 (3.69-6.10)

OS, overall survival; CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; BMI, body mass index; LN, lymph node; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; ALT, alanine transferase; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; CRP, C-reactive protein; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9.

Table 5.

Cox-proportional hazard modeling for overall survival

Variable	Cox model coefficient (β)	HR	95% CI for HR	p-value
CEA	1.430	4.18	1.95-8.97	< 0.001
Disease status	1.214	3.37	1.55-7.32	0.002
Sarcopenia	1.088	2.97	1.20-7.36	0.019
Neutrophilia	1.077	2.94	1.27-6.79	0.012
LDH elevation	0.673	1.96	1.07-3.58	0.029

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase.

REFERENCES

1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. Article PubMed
2. Hidalgo M. Pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1605–17. Article PubMed
3. Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, Green MR, Rothenberg ML, Modiano MR, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2403–13. Article PubMed
4. Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, Figer A, Hecht JR, Gallinger S, et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1960–6. Article PubMed
5. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouche O, Guimbaud R, Becouarn Y, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25. Article PubMed
6. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, Chiorean EG, Infante J, Moore M, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1691–703. Article PubMed PMC
7. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Oh CM, Cho H, Lee DH, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2012. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47:127–41. Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Cartwright TH, Ginsburg A, Wilfong LS, Harrell RK, Hoverman JR. Use of first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine-based therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(5S):Abstr.Article
9. Bachmann J, Heiligensetzer M, Krakowski-Roosen H, Buchler MW, Friess H, Martignoni ME. Cachexia worsens prognosis in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1193–201. Article PubMed
10. Davison KK, Birch LL. Lean and weight stable: behavioral predictors and psychological correlates. Obes Res. 2004;12:1085–93. Article PubMed PMC
11. Fearon K, Strasser F, Anker SD, Bosaeus I, Bruera E, Fainsinger RL, et al. Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:489–95. Article PubMed
12. Dalal S, Hui D, Bidaut L, Lem K, Del Fabbro E, Crane C, et al. Relationships among body mass index, longitudinal body composition alterations, and survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemoradiation: a pilot study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;44:181–91. Article PubMed PMC
13. Di Sebastiano KM, Yang L, Zbuk K, Wong RK, Chow T, Koff D, et al. Accelerated muscle and adipose tissue loss may predict survival in pancreatic cancer patients: the relationship with diabetes and anaemia. Br J Nutr. 2013;109:302–12. Article PubMed
14. Tan BH, Birdsell LA, Martin L, Baracos VE, Fearon KC. Sarcopenia in an overweight or obese patient is an adverse prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6973–9. Article PubMed
15. Kim YS, Lee Y, Chung YS, Lee DJ, Joo NS, Hong D, et al. Prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in the Korean population based on the Fourth Korean National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012;67:1107–13. Article PubMed
16. Mourtzakis M, Prado CM, Lieffers JR, Reiman T, McCargar LJ, Baracos VE. A practical and precise approach to quantification of body composition in cancer patients using computed tomography images acquired during routine care. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008;33:997–1006. Article PubMed
17. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Ross R. Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:889–96. Article PubMed
18. Brunelli A, Rocco G. Internal validation of risk models in lung resection surgery: bootstrap versus training-and-test sampling. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:1243–7. Article PubMed
19. Grunkemeier GL, Wu Y. Bootstrap resampling methods: something for nothing? Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:1142–4. Article PubMed
20. Stocken DD, Hassan AB, Altman DG, Billingham LJ, Bramhall SR, Johnson PJ, et al. Modelling prognostic factors in advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:883–93. Article PubMed PMC
21. Marechal R, Demols A, Gay F, De Maertelaere V, Arvanitaki M, Hendlisz A, et al. Prognostic factors and prognostic index for chemonaive and gemcitabine-refractory patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Oncology. 2007;73:41–51. Article PubMed
22. Wasan HS, Springett GM, Chodkiewicz C, Wong R, Maurel J, Barone C, et al. CA 19-9 as a biomarker in advanced pancreatic cancer patients randomised to gemcitabine plus axitinib or gemcitabine alone. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:1162–7. Article PubMed PMC
23. Lee KJ, Yi SW, Chung MJ, Park SW, Song SY, Chung JB, et al. Serum CA 19-9 and CEA levels as a prognostic factor in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54:643–9. Article PubMed PMC
24. Inal A, Kos FT, Algin E, Yildiz R, Berk V, Tugba Unek I, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine alone or gemcitabine plus cisplatin: retrospective analysis of a multicenter study. J BUON. 2012;17:102–5. PubMed
25. Tas F, Aykan F, Alici S, Kaytan E, Aydiner A, Topuz E. Prognostic factors in pancreatic carcinoma: serum LDH levels predict survival in metastatic disease. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001;24:547–50. Article PubMed
26. Faloppi L, Bianconi M, Giampieri R, Sobrero A, Labianca R, Ferrari D, et al. The value of lactate dehydrogenase serum levels as a prognostic and predictive factor for advanced pancreatic cancer patients receiving sorafenib. Oncotarget. 2015;6:35087–94. Article PubMed PMC
27. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412–23. Article PubMed PMC
28. Martin L, Birdsell L, Macdonald N, Reiman T, Clandinin MT, McCargar LJ, et al. Cancer cachexia in the age of obesity: skeletal muscle depletion is a powerful prognostic factor, independent of body mass index. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1539–47. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Prognostic value of deep learning-derived body composition in advanced pancreatic cancer—a retrospective multicenter study
J. Keyl, A. Bucher, F. Jungmann, R. Hosch, A. Ziller, R. Armbruster, P. Malkomes, T.M. Reissig, S. Koitka, I. Tzianopoulos, P. Keyl, K. Kostbade, D. Albers, P. Markus, J. Treckmann, K. Nassenstein, J. Haubold, M. Makowski, M. Forsting, H.A. Baba, S. Kaspe
ESMO Open.2024; 9(1): 102219. CrossRef
Body composition measures as a determinant of Alpelisib related toxicity
Eliya Shachar, Ari Raphael, Uriel Katz, Rivka Kessner, Shlomit Strulov Shachar
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.2024; 206(2): 369. CrossRef
The relationship between LDH and GLIM criteria for cancer cachexia: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Joshua J. Thompson, Josh McGovern, Campbell S.D. Roxburgh, Joanne Edwards, Ross D. Dolan, Donald C. McMillan
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology.2024; 199: 104378. CrossRef
Prevalence of Sarcopenia Determined by Computed Tomography in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Antonio Jesús Láinez Ramos-Bossini, Antonio Gámez Martínez, David Luengo Gómez, Francisco Valverde-López, Consolación Melguizo, José Prados
Cancers.2024; 16(19): 3356. CrossRef
Sarkopenie als unabhängiger Prognosefaktor bei Pankreaskarzinom
Johanna Mandl, Sebastian Baumer, Bernadette Holtzem, Rainer Theurer, Niels Zorger, Oliver Pech
Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie.2023; 61(10): 1365. CrossRef
Association between Body Composition and Peripheral Neurotoxicity in Cancer Patients from North China Taking Nab-Paclitaxel
Jiayuan Guo, Juan Zhao, Ming Gu, Jixiang Hou, Ting Xu, Ying Jiang, Caihong Jiang, Hui Li, Xiaorong Li, Guang Liu, Lanzhen Zhao, Gaowa Jin, Yongzhi Shi, Ting Liu, Zhenhao Li, Zewei Zhang, Quanfu Li
Nutrition and Cancer.2023; 75(3): 805. CrossRef
Sarcopenia is an Independent Prognostic Factor in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer – a Meta-analysis
Maximilian Thormann, Mattes Hinnerichs, Felix Barajas Ordonez, Sylvia Saalfeld, Aristoteles Perrakis, Roland Croner, Jazan Omari, Maciej Pech, Marina Zamsheva, Hans-Jonas Meyer, Andreas Wienke, Alexey Surov
Academic Radiology.2023; 30(8): 1552. CrossRef
Pre-Therapeutic Sarcopenia among Cancer Patients: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Predictive Value during Cancer Treatment
Anne-Laure Couderc, Evelyne Liuu, Pascaline Boudou-Rouquette, Johanne Poisson, Maxime Frelaut, Coline Montégut, Soraya Mebarki, Romain Geiss, Zoé ap Thomas, Aurélien Noret, Monica Pierro, Capucine Baldini, Elena Paillaud, Frédéric Pamoukdjian
Nutrients.2023; 15(5): 1193. CrossRef
Association of myosteatosis with treatment response and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing chemoembolization: a retrospective cohort study
Kittipitch Bannangkoon, Keerati Hongsakul, Teeravut Tubtawee, Natee Ina, Ply Chichareon
Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Prognostic value of pretreatment skeletal muscle index in pancreatic carcinoma patients: A meta-analysis
Li Yang, Xianghui Liao, Zhong Xie, Haiwen Li
Medicine.2023; 102(19): e33663. CrossRef
Is Computed-Tomography-Based Body Composition a Reliable Predictor of Chemotherapy-Related Toxicity in Pancreatic Cancer Patients?
Marco Cefalì, Isabel Scala, Giuliana Pavone, Daniel Helbling, Saskia Hussung, Ralph Fritsch, Cäcilia Reiner, Soleen Stocker, Dieter Koeberle, Marc Kissling, Vito Chianca, Filippo Del Grande, Sara De Dosso, Stefania Rizzo
Cancers.2023; 15(17): 4398. CrossRef
Sarkopenie als unabhängiger Prognosefaktor bei Pankreaskarzinom
Johanna Mandl, Sebastian Baumer, Bernadette Holtzem, Rainer Theurer, Niels Zorger, Oliver Pech
TumorDiagnostik & Therapie.2023; 44(10): 696. CrossRef
Gastrointestinal Cancer Patient Nutritional Management: From Specific Needs to Novel Epigenetic Dietary Approaches
Chiara Cencioni, Ilaria Trestini, Geny Piro, Emilio Bria, Giampaolo Tortora, Carmine Carbone, Francesco Spallotta
Nutrients.2022; 14(8): 1542. CrossRef
Sarcopenia
Hiroyuki Asama, Makoto Ueno, Satoshi Kobayashi, Taito Fukushima, Kuniyuki Kawano, Yusuke Sano, Satoshi Tanaka, Shuhei Nagashima, Manabu Morimoto, Hiromasa Ohira, Shin Maeda
Pancreas.2022; 51(2): 148. CrossRef
Prognostic significance of sarcopenia as determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus nab‑paclitaxel: A retrospective study
Yuichiro Tozuka, Makoto Ueno, Satoshi Kobayashi, Manabu Morimoto, Taito Fukushima, Yusuke Sano, Kuniyuki Kawano, Akane Hanaoka, Shun Tezuka, Hiroyuki Asama, Satoshi Moriya, Soichiro Morinaga, Shinichi Ohkawa, Shin Maeda
Oncology Letters.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Body composition as a predictor of chemotherapy-related toxicity in pancreatic cancer patients: A systematic review
Stefania Rizzo, Isabel Scala, Angela Rodriguez Robayo, Marco Cefalì, Sara De Dosso, Stefano Cappio, Genti Xhepa, Filippo Del Grande
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Dynamic changes in the body composition during chemotherapy for gastrointestinal tumors in the context of active nutrition intervention
Ting Xu, Zhenhao Li, Hui Li, Jixiang Hou, Jingjing Li, Gaowa Jin, Shaohua Li, Quanfu Li
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Prognostic value of skeletal muscle mass during tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Emanuele Rinninella, Marco Cintoni, Pauline Raoul, Francesca Romana Ponziani, Maurizio Pompili, Carmelo Pozzo, Antonia Strippoli, Emilio Bria, Giampaolo Tortora, Antonio Gasbarrini, Maria Cristina Mele
Internal and Emergency Medicine.2021; 16(5): 1341. CrossRef
Clinical significance of skeletal muscle density and sarcopenia in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing first-line chemotherapy: a retrospective observational study
In-Ho Kim, Moon Hyung Choi, In Seok Lee, Tae Ho Hong, Myung Ah. Lee
BMC Cancer.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
The impact of body composition on short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus S-1 in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer
Tsuyoshi Takeda, Takashi Sasaki, Takafumi Mie, Takaaki Furukawa, Yuto Yamada, Akiyoshi Kasuga, Masato Matsuyama, Masato Ozaka, Naoki Sasahira
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology.2021; 51(4): 604. CrossRef
Prognostic significance of skeletal muscle decrease in unresectable pancreatic cancer: Survival analysis using the Weibull exponential distribution model
Hiroki Sato, Takuma Goto, Akihiro Hayashi, Hidemasa Kawabata, Tetsuhiro Okada, Shuhei Takauji, Junpei Sasajima, Katsuro Enomoto, Mikihiro Fujiya, Kyohei Oyama, Yusuke Ono, Ayumu Sugitani, Yusuke Mizukami, Toshikatsu Okumura
Pancreatology.2021; 21(5): 892. CrossRef
Current situation, consensus and controversy of perioperative nutrition management in pancreatic surgery: A narrative review
Jingyong Xu, Junmin Wei
Journal of Pancreatology.2021; 4(1): 37. CrossRef
Maintenance of skeletal muscle mass during FOLFIRINOX is a favorable prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer patients
Dong Woo Shin, Minseok Albert Kim, Jong-chan Lee, Jaihwan Kim, Jin-Hyeok Hwang
BMC Research Notes.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Depletion of Psoas Muscle Mass after Systemic Chemotherapy Is Associated with Poor Prognosis in Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer
Naoto Iwai, Takashi Okuda, Kohei Oka, Junichi Sakagami, Taishi Harada, Tomoya Ohara, Chie Hattori, Masashi Taniguchi, Hiroaki Sakai, Tasuku Hara, Toshifumi Tsuji, Toshiyuki Komaki, Keizo Kagawa, Osamu Dohi, Hiroaki Yasuda, Yoshito Itoh
Cancers.2021; 13(15): 3860. CrossRef
Neoadjuvant treatment: A window of opportunity for nutritional prehabilitation in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Ilaria Trestini, Marco Cintoni, Emanuele Rinninella, Futura Grassi, Salvatore Paiella, Roberto Salvia, Emilio Bria, Carmelo Pozzo, Sergio Alfieri, Antonio Gasbarrini, Giampaolo Tortora, Michele Milella, Maria Cristina Mele
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2021; 13(9): 885. CrossRef
Circulating Immunological Biomarkers
Fleur van der Sijde, Dana A.M. Mustafa, Eveline E. Vietsch, Peter D. Katsikis, Casper H. J. van Eijck
Pancreas.2021; 50(7): 933. CrossRef
Influence of sarcopenia in major pancreatic surgery. A systematic review of the literature
Raquel Aranzazu Latorre Fragua, Alba Manuel Vázquez, Carmen Ramiro Pérez, Roberto de la Plaza Llamas, José Manuel Ramia Ángel
Gastroenterología y Hepatología.2020; 43(3): 142. CrossRef
Serum miR-338-3p and miR-199b-5p are associated with the absolute neutrophil count in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer
Fleur van der Sijde, Eveline E. Vietsch, Dana A.M. Mustafa, Yunlei Li, Casper H.J. van Eijck
Clinica Chimica Acta.2020; 505: 183. CrossRef
Influence of sarcopenia in major pancreatic surgery. A systematic review of the literature
Raquel Aranzazu Latorre Fragua, Alba Manuel Vázquez, Carmen Ramiro Pérez, Roberto de la Plaza Llamas, José Manuel Ramia Ángel
Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition).2020; 43(3): 142. CrossRef
The impact of sarcopenia on patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Julia R. Amundson, Jelani K. Williams, Andrew J. Benjamin, Hunter D.D. Witmer, Kevin K. Roggin
Journal of Pancreatology.2020; 3(2): 59. CrossRef
Impact of progressive resistance training on CT quantified muscle and adipose tissue compartments in pancreatic cancer patients
Raoul Wochner, Dorothea Clauss, Johanna Nattenmüller, Christine Tjaden, Thomas Bruckner, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor, Thilo Hackert, Joachim Wiskemann, Karen Steindorf, Leonardo A. Peyré-Tartaruga
PLOS ONE.2020; 15(11): e0242785. CrossRef
Prognostic factors in patients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine: implication of inflammation-based scores
Inhwan Hwang, Jihoon Kang, Hei Nga Natalie Ip, Jae Ho Jeong, Kyu-pyo Kim, Heung-Moon Chang, Changhoon Yoo, Baek-Yeol Ryoo
Investigational New Drugs.2019; 37(3): 584. CrossRef
Sarcopenia is a reliable prognostic factor in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy
Yusuke Kurita, Noritoshi Kobayashi, Motohiko Tokuhisa, Ayumu Goto, Kensuke Kubota, Itaru Endo, Atsushi Nakajima, Yasushi Ichikawa
Pancreatology.2019; 19(1): 127. CrossRef
Significance of the inflammation-based prognostic score in recurrent pancreatic cancer
Kenji Nakagawa, Masayuki Sho, Takahiro Akahori, Minako Nagai, Kota Nakamura, Tadataka Takagi, Toshihiro Tanaka, Hideyuki Nishiofuku, Chiho Ohbayashi, Kimihiko Kichikawa, Naoya Ikeda
Pancreatology.2019; 19(5): 722. CrossRef
Body composition assessment and sarcopenia in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
James Bundred, Sivesh K. Kamarajah, Keith J. Roberts
HPB.2019; 21(12): 1603. CrossRef
Prognostic Significance of Sarcopenia in Patients with Unresectable Advanced Esophageal Cancer
Sachiyo Onishi, Masahiro Tajika, Tsutomu Tanaka, Yutaka Hirayama, Kazuo Hara, Nobumasa Mizuno, Takamichi Kuwahara, Nozomi Okuno, Yoshitaka Inaba, Takeshi Kodaira, Tetsuya Abe, Kei Muro, Masahito Shimizu, Yasumasa Niwa
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2019; 8(10): 1647. CrossRef
An update on treatment options for pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Aurélien Lambert, Lilian Schwarz, Ivan Borbath, Aline Henry, Jean-Luc Van Laethem, David Malka, Michel Ducreux, Thierry Conroy
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Sarcopenia Predicts Prognosis in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Independent of Tumor Stage and Liver Function
Yeonjung Ha, Daejung Kim, Seungbong Han, Young Eun Chon, Yun Bin Lee, Mi Na Kim, Joo Ho Lee, Hana Park, Kyu Sung Rim, Seong Gyu Hwang
Cancer Research and Treatment.2018; 50(3): 843. CrossRef
The Obesity Paradox in Cancer: How Important Is Muscle?
Elizabeth M. Cespedes Feliciano, Candyce H. Kroenke, Bette J. Caan
Annual Review of Nutrition.2018; 38(1): 357. CrossRef
Dietary fat stimulates pancreatic cancer growth and promotes fibrosis of the tumor microenvironment through the cholecystokinin receptor
Sandeep Nadella, Julian Burks, Abdulhameed Al-Sabban, Gloria Inyang, Juan Wang, Robin D. Tucker, Marie E. Zamanis, William Bukowski, Narayan Shivapurkar, Jill P. Smith
American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology.2018; 315(5): G699. CrossRef
Prognostic value of pretreatment serum lactate dehydrogenase level in pancreatic cancer patients
Jianxin Gan, Wenhu Wang, Zengxi Yang, Jiebin Pan, Liang Zheng, Lanning Yin
Medicine.2018; 97(46): e13151. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Prognostic Factors for Risk Stratification of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Who Were Treated with Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy

Cancer Res Treat. 2016;48(4):1264-1273. Published online March 23, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2015.250

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
NOTES
REFERENCES

Prognostic Factors for Risk Stratification of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Who Were Treated with Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy

Fig. 1. Kaplan-Meier curve for overall survival. With a median follow-up period of 44.32 months, median overall survival was 5.35 months (95% confidence interval, 4.11 to 6.59).

Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier curve for overall survival according to prognostic grouping. Median overall survival for the favorable (blue line), intermediate (red line), and poor risk groups (green line) was 11.04 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.14 to 13.93), 5.36 months (95% CI, 3.02 to 7.70), and 2.17 months (95% CI, 0.40 to 3.93), respectively (p < 0.001).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Prognostic Factors for Risk Stratification of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Who Were Treated with Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy

Characteristic	No. (%) (n=88)
Age, median (range)	65 (34-83)
Sex
Male	59 (67.0)
Female	29 (33.0)
Primary pancreatic tumor site
Head	45 (51.1)
Body	25 (28.4)
Tail	18 (20.5)
Differentiation
Well differentiated	2 (2.3)
Moderately differentiated	35 (39.8)
Poorly differentiated	17 (19.3)
Cytology	34 (38.6)
ECOG PS
0	6 (6.8)
1	55 (62.5)
2	27 (30.7)
Disease status
Recurrent	24 (27.3)
Initially metastatic	64 (72.7)
Diabetes mellitus	26 (29.5)
Weight loss	20 (22.7)
Biliary drainage	11 (12.5)
Previous therapy
Pancreatectomy	35 (39.8)
Adjuvant therapy	17 (19.3)
Sites of metastases
Lymph node	57 (64.8)
Liver	53 (60.2)
Peritoneum	24 (27.3)
Lung	11 (12.5)
Bone	10 (11.4)
No. of metastasized organs
1	28 (31.8)
2	38 (43.2)
3	15 (17.0)
4	7 (8.0)
CA19-9, median (range, U/mL)	215.00 (1.26-62,803.00)
CEA, median (range, ng/mL)	3.31 (0.11-298.30)
First-line chemotherapy
Gemcitabine monotherapy	29 (33.0)
Gemcitabine+erlotinib	59 (67.0)

Variable	Overall (n=88)	Male (n=59)	Female (n=29)
BMI (kg/m²)	21.3±3.0	21.0±2.7	21.9±3.3
SMI (cm²/m²)	39.5±7.6	40.8±7.5	36.8±6.9
ASM (kg/m²)	5.5±0.8	5.7±0.8	5.2±0.8
Sarcopenia	76 (86.3)	57 (96.6)	19 (65.5)
Class 1 sarcopenia	20 (22.7)	7 (11.9)	13 (44.8)
Class 2 sarcopenia	56 (63.6)	50 (84.7)	6 (20.7)

Variable	Sarcopenia (n=76)	No sarcopenia (n=12)	p-value
Age (yr)	63.3±9.6	65.5±9.1	0.452
Sex
Male	57 (75.0)	2 (16.7)	< 0.001
Female	19 (25.0)	10 (83.3)
Disease status
Recurrent	22 (28.9)	2 (16.7)	0.5
Initially metastatic	54 (71.1)	10 (83.3)
Weight loss
Present	19 (25.0)	1 (8.3)	0.283
Absent	57 (75.0)	11 (91.7)
BMI (kg/m²)
< 20	31 (40.8)	0	< 0.001
20-25	42 (55.3)	7 (58.3)
> 25	3 (3.9)	5 (41.7)
ECOG PS
0-1	54 (71.1)	7 (58.3)	0.501
2	22 (28.9)	5 (41.7)
Neutrophilia
Present	10 (13.3)	1 (8.3)	0.704
Absent	65 (86.7)	11 (91.7)
Hypoalbuminemia
Present	10 (13.3)	0	0.345
Absent	65 (86.7)	12 (100)
LDH elevation
Present	20 (28.2)	4 (36.4)	0.723
Absent	51 (71.8)	7 (63.6)
CA19-9 elevation
Present	52 (70.3)	7 (58.3)	0.505
Absent	22 (29.7)	5 (41.7)
CEA elevation
Present	31 (44.3)	0	0.003
Absent	39 (55.7)	12 (100)

Variable	No. of patients		Median OS (95% CI)	p-value
Variable	Death	Total	Median OS (95% CI)	p-value
Age
Under median	44	47	4.90 (4.06-5.73)	0.327
Over median	38	40	6.54 (3.48-9.59)
Sex
Male	56	59	5.26 (4.44-6.07)	0.104
Female	26	28	5.98 (3.42-8.54)
Primary site
Head	42	44	5.98 (3.72-8.24)	0.191
Body	24	25	4.90 (4.31-5.49)
Tail	16	18	5.16 (3.59-6.73)
Disease status
Recurrent	21	24	10.12 (7.44-12.80)	< 0.001
Metastatic	61	63	4.73 (3.52-5.95)
First-line regimen
Gemcitabine	29	29	5.98 (3.38-8.58)	0.323
Gemcitabine+erlotinib	53	58	5.26 (4.36-6.16)
ECOG PS
0-1	57	61	7.13 (4.08-10.18)	0.044
2	25	26	3.42 (1.20-5.63)
Sarcopenia
No	10	11	9.27 (4.87-13.66)	0.026
Yes	72	76	5.16 (4.46-5.86)
BMI (kg/m²)
< 20	29	31	5.36 (3.96-6.75)	0.952
20-24.9	46	49	4.63 (3.28-5.98)
≥ 25	8	8	7.13 (3.35-10.91)
LN metastasis
No	28	31	6.24 (3.99-8.50)	0.113
Yes	54	56	4.73 (3.69-5.78)
Liver metastasis
No	31	34	8.21 (5.63-10.80)	0.015
Yes	51	53	4.73 (3.53-5.93)
Lung metastasis
No	72	76	5.36 (3.81-6.90)	0.697
Yes	10	11	5.36 (0.00-11.03)
Peritoneal metastasis
No	59	63	6.24 (4.20-8.29)	0.028
Yes	23	24	4.67 (2.65-6.68)
Bone metastasis
No	73	78	5.98 (4.65-7.31)	0.007
Yes	9	9	4.50 (1.91-7.10)
Anemia
No	33	37	7.33 (4.94-9.72)	0.024
Yes	49	49	4.73 (4.01-5.45)
Neutrophilia
No	71	75	6.24 (4.80-7.69)	< 0.001
Yes	11	11	1.18 (0.00-2.67)
Thrombocytosis
No	70	74	5.39 (3.93-6.84)	0.391
Yes	12	12	3.52 (0.00-7.48)
LDH elevation
No	53	57	6.24 (4.70-7.78)	0.011
Yes	24	24	3.25 (0.57-5.93)
ALT elevation
No	61	64	5.98 (4.35-7.61)	0.107
Yes	22	23	2.73 (1.08-4.37)
ALP elevation
No	53	56	6.54 (4.41-8.67)	0.172
Yes	30	31	4.50 (2.24-6.76)
Hypoalbuminemia
No	72	76	6.18 (4.58-7.78)	< 0.001
Yes	10	10	2.14 (0.86-3.41)
CRP elevation
No	25	27	8.18 (6.34-10.02)	0.029
Yes	45	45	3.91 (2.27-5.55)
CEA elevation
No	48	50	8.51 (6.12-10.90)	< 0.001
Yes	30	31	3.42 (1.98-4.85)
CA19-9 elevation
No	23	26	7.13 (2.70-11.56)	0.010
Yes	58	59	4.90 (3.69-6.10)

Variable	Cox model coefficient (β)	HR	95% CI for HR	p-value
CEA	1.430	4.18	1.95-8.97	< 0.001
Disease status	1.214	3.37	1.55-7.32	0.002
Sarcopenia	1.088	2.97	1.20-7.36	0.019
Neutrophilia	1.077	2.94	1.27-6.79	0.012
LDH elevation	0.673	1.96	1.07-3.58	0.029

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics

ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Table 2. SMI, ASM, and sarcopenia of patients

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%). SMI, skeletal muscle index; ASM, appendicular skeletal muscle mass; BMI, body mass index.

Table 3. Association of clinicolaboratory factors with sarcopenia

Table 4. Log-rank test for overall survival

Table 5. Cox-proportional hazard modeling for overall survival

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase.