Real-world evidence on first- and second-line palliative chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

Table 3 Real-world studies comparing Folfirinox and Gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel in the first-line setting[25-32]

Ref.	Location	Study design	n	M1	Regimen	mOS in mo, P value	Prognostic factors	mPFS in mo, P value	Remarks
Franco et al[25], 2020	Spain	Retrospective cohort	119	50%	FFX 59; GnP 60	FFX 12.7; GnP 10.2; P = 0.912	Ca19-9, NLR	-	Toxicity data not reported
Wang et al[26], 2019	Canada	Retrospective cohort	225	58%	FFX 92; GnP 87; Gem 46	FFX 14.1; GnP 10.5; Gem 4.2	-	FFX 8.4; GnP 8.5; Gem 3.7	Sign more hematotoxicity in FFX
Pusceddu et al[27], 2019	-	Review	3813	NA	FFX 1690; GnP 2123	1.15 longer for FFX. P = 0.03	-	-	GnP more neurotoxicity and anemia. FFX more neutropenia
Chiorean et al[28], 2019	-	Review	> 6915	NA	FFX > 3556; GnP > 3359	FFX 15.9; GnP 14.4	-	FFX 11.7; GnP 8.5	FFX more neutropenia, GnP more neuropathy
Papneja et al[29], 2019	Canada	Retrospective cohort	119	77%	FFX 86; GnP 33	FFX 9.0; GnP 9.0	S-Alb, male sex, 2nd line therapy	FFX 6.0; GnP 4.0	Grade 1-2 thromboembolism, mucositis and neuropathy sign more in FFX. Among grade 3-4 toxicity only fatigue sign more in GnP group
Kordes et al[32], 2019	Sweden	Retrospective cohort	595	-	FFX 31; GnP 66; Gem 185	FFX 9.9; GnP 9.8; Gem 6.6	-	-	No sign differences in toxicity comparing FFX vs GnP
Cartwright et al[30], 2018	United States	Retrospective cohort	486	100%	FFX 159; GnP 255; Gem 72	FFX 11.4; GnP 9.8; Gem 4.4	-	-	No sign differences in toxicity comparing FFX vs GnP
Kim et al[31], 2018	United States	Retrospective cohort	654	100%	FFX 317; GnP 337	FFX 13.8; GnP 12.1; P = 0.96	Age	-	Less toxicity in GnP group

FFX: Folfirinox; Gem: Gemcitabine; GnP: Gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel; M1: Metastatic disease; mOS: Median overall survival; mPFS: Median progression-free survival; NA: Not applicable; NLR: Neutrophil-leucocyte ratio; s-Alb: Serum albumin.