Ma YY, Leng Y, Xing YL, Li HM, Chen JB, Niu LZ. Gemcitabine plus concurrent irreversible electroporation vs gemcitabine alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(22): 5564-5575 [PMID: 33344547 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i22.5564]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Li-Zhi Niu, MD, PhD, Chief Physician, Department of Interventional Radiology, Affiliated Fuda Cancer Hospital, Jinan University, No. 2 Tangde West Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510665, Guangdong Province, China. niuboshi@fudahospital.com
Research Domain of This Article
Oncology
Article-Type of This Article
Clinical Trials Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
History of cardiac disease: Congestive heart failure > NYHA classification 2; cardiac arrhythmias requiring anti-arrhythmic therapy or pacemaker
PS 0-2
Uncontrolled hypertension
Written informed consent
Any implanted metal stent/device within the area of ablation that cannot be removed
Table 2 Demographics and tumor parameters of eligible patients
Characteristic
GEM + IRE group (n = 33)
GEM group (n = 35)
P value
Age, yr
Median
63
65
Range
45-86
39-81
Sex
Female
18 (54.5)
19 (54.3)
0.983
Male
15 (45.5)
16 (45.7)
Pathology
Adenocarcinoma
26
23
Lesion size (cm)
4.1 (3.0-5.0)
3.9 (3.0-5.0)
Tumor location
Head and neck
23 (23.3)
21 (26.7)
0.686
Body and tail
5 (40.0)
6 (50.0)
Previous surgical therapy
0.479
Gastrojejunostomy
3 (9.1)
4 (11.4)
Hepaticojejunostomy
1 (3.0)
2 (5.7)
Double bypass
2 (6.1)
0 (0.0)
Plastic retrievable endoprosthesis
1 (3.0)
1 (2.9)
Performance status
0.757
0
12 (36.3)
14 (40.0)
1
21 (63.7)
21 (60.0)
Accepted treatment
0.681
Biliary bypass and gastrojejunostomy
2 (6.1)
1 (2.9)
Cholecystectomy
1 (3.0)
0 (0.0)
Gastroenterostomy
2 (6.1)
2 (5.7)
Herb therapy
2 (6.1)
3 (8.6)
Immunotherapy
1 (3.0)
0 (0.0)
Table 3 Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival in patients
Characteristic
GEM + IRE group (n = 33)
GEM group (n = 35)
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
HR
95%CI
P value
HR
95%CI
P value
Age (yr)
≤ 60/> 60
1.632
0.763-3.325
0.121
Gender
Female/male
2.321
1.202-4.047
0.215
Tumor site
Head/body/tail
0.952
0.676-1.524
0.832
Tumor volume (cm3)
≤ 37/> 37
2.386
1.312-4.415
0.008
2.913
1.181-6.381
0.023
WBC (× 109)
≤ 10/> 10
1.128
0.343-2.872
0.988
HGB (g/L)
≤ 120/> 120
0.586
0.254-1.693
0.383
PLT (× 109)
≤ 300/> 300
1.218
0.526-2.867
0.672
ALT (U/L)
≤ 40/> 40
0.778
0.368-1.686
0.514
AST (U/L)
≤ 40/> 40
0.427
0.275-1.406
0.209
ALP (U/L)
≤ 100/> 100
0.895
0.506-1.824
0.793
CEA (ng/mL)
≤ 5/> 5
1.381
1.027-2.741
0.474
CA19-9 level
≤ 35/> 35
1.350
0.618-3.572
0.245
CA19-9 decrease 3 mo after treatment
≤ 50%/>50%
2.659
1.096-6.532
0.032
3.084
1.304-7.854
0.011
GEM
With/without IRE
0.389
0.178-0.952
0.045
0.422
0.157-0.958
0.047
Table 4 Univariate and multivariate analyses of progression free survival in patients
Characteristic
GEM + IRE group (n = 33)
GEM group (n = 35)
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
HR
95%CI
P value
HR
95%CI
P value
Age (yr)
≤ 60/> 60
1.167
0.669-2.203
0.554
Gender
Female/male
1.602
0.942-2.802
0.097
Tumor size (cm)
≤ 4/> 4
0.787
0.489-1.280
0.334
Tumor site
Head/body/tail
0.942
0.623-1.410
0.750
Tumor volume (cm3)
≤ 37/> 37
2.386
1.298-4.406
0.012
2.856
1.180-6.420
0.025
WBC (× 109)
≤ 10/> 10
1.149
0.468-2.575
0.697
HGB (g/L)
≤ 120/> 120
0.587
0.298-1.513
0.285
PLT (× 109)
≤ 300/> 300
0.653
0.274-1.752
0.342
ALT (U/L)
≤ 40/> 40
0.542
0.433-1.533
0.341
AST (U/L)
≤ 40/> 40
0.636
0.347-1.521
0.304
ALP (U/L)
≤ 100/> 100
0.726
0.521-1.367
0.572
CEA (ng/mL)
≤ 5/> 5
1.322
0.715-2.602
0.162
CA19-9 (U/ml)
≤ 35/> 35
2.056
1.009-3.019
0.052
CA19-9 decrease 3 mo after IRE
≤ 50%/> 50%
2.258
0.895-6.428
0.032
GEM
With/without IRE
0.557
0.308-1.210
0.046
0.582
0.322-1.050
0.042
Table 5 Adverse reactions after treatment
Adverse event
GEM + IRE group (n = 33)
GEM group (n = 35)
Grade
I/II
III
IV
I/II
III
IV
Toxicity
Hypoalbuminemia
5
0
0
3
0
0
Lymphopenia
2
0
0
1
0
0
Hemoglobin reduction
3
0
0
2
0
0
Neutropenia
1
0
0
0
0
0
Thrombocytopenia
2
0
0
3
0
0
Vomiting
2
0
0
3
0
0
Hypokalemia
1
0
0
1
0
0
Diarrhea
2
0
0
1
0
0
Complications
Pancreatitis
0
2
0
0
0
0
Ascites
2
0
0
4
0
0
Bleeding from duodenal ulcer
0
1
0
0
0
0
Portal vein thrombosis
1
0
0
3
0
0
Loss of appetite
2
0
1
0
0
Gastroparesis
1
0
0
1
0
0
Abdominal pain
2
0
0
2
2
0
Citation: Ma YY, Leng Y, Xing YL, Li HM, Chen JB, Niu LZ. Gemcitabine plus concurrent irreversible electroporation vs gemcitabine alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(22): 5564-5575