Next Article in Journal
The Liver Can Deliver: Utility of Hepatic Function Tests as Predictors of Outcome in COVID-19, Influenza and RSV Infections
Next Article in Special Issue
Modifiable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) Risk Factors
Previous Article in Journal
Quantitative Assessment of Upper Limb Movement in Post-Stroke Adults for Identification of Sensitive Measures in Reaching and Lifting Activities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Protein Induced by Vitamin K Absence II: A Potential Biomarker to Differentiate Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma from Pancreatic Benign Lesions and Predict Vascular Invasion
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/jcm12093334
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer

by
Byung Soo Kwan
1,2,
Ok Jae Lee
3,4,*,
Hyun Jin Kim
4,5,
Kwang Min Kim
2,
Sang Goon Shim
2,
Dae Hyeon Cho
2,
Sung Min Kong
2,
Jun Young Kim
2 and
Jun Ho Ji
2
1
Department of Medicine, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
4
Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
5
Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon 51472, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(9), 3334; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093334
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 2 May 2023 / Accepted: 6 May 2023 / Published: 8 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background/Aims: The incidence of pancreatic cancer (PC) is gradually increasing among elderly individuals, but there are insufficient clinical data on elderly individuals. To determine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy, we compared the. the outcomes of elderly patients with unresectable PC. Methods: We enrolled patients aged 75 years or older diagnosed with PC from 1 January 2010 to 30 November 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the heterogeneity of the study population. For efficacy evaluation, the median overall survival (OS) was estimated for the chemotherapy and nonchemotherapy groups. Chemotherapy tolerability evaluations were also investigated. Results: The study included 115 patients, 47 of whom received chemotherapy and 68 who did not. After PSM, compared with the nonchemotherapy group, the chemotherapy group had more myocardial infarctions (14.6 vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.4 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.043). The primary endpoint, median OS, was significantly different in the with vs. without chemotherapy groups (203 vs. 106 days, p = 0.013). In the chemotherapy group, 10 patients (21.3%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. However, there were no reports of death due to severe adverse events. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that chemotherapy improved median OS among elderly patients. These data could support the use of chemotherapy for elderly patients with unresectable PC.

1. Introduction

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in Western countries and the seventh leading cause of cancer-related death in the world [1,2]. In Korea, PC is the eighth most common cancer; however, the five-year survival rate is only 12.2%, and its incidence is gradually increasing in elderly individuals [3,4,5]. It has been reported that treatment outcomes are worse in elderly patients than in younger patients [6,7]. However, elderly patients are underrepresented in existing clinical studies, so data regarding the treatment frequency and intensity for elderly PC patients are generally limited [8,9]. This lack of data presents many limitations in terms of constructing a treatment strategy for elderly individuals. Therefore, data on the treatment response of elderly PC patients are needed.
The possibility of surgery is a very important factor in the prognosis of PC. Depending on the possibility of surgery, the prognosis is markedly different; R0 resection has an average survival of 31.8 months; however, if untreated, life expectancy is only a few months [6,10]. To improve the poor prognosis, chemotherapy is the main treatment for unresectable PC, and recent studies on chemotherapy for PC show promising statistics in terms of improving the survival rate. With the introduction of a combination regimen of 5-FU, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) in 2011, the median overall survival time improved to 11.1 months compared to 6.8 months for gemcitabine monotherapy, which has been the standard treatment since 1997 [11,12]. In addition, the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combined chemotherapy regimen introduced in 2013 was reported to yield a median OS of 8.5 months, a significant improvement in survival compared to the 6.7 months for gemcitabine monotherapy [13].
Recently, we have entered an aging society, and in the past, those aged 65 and over were defined as elderly, 7% or more of the population as an aging society, 14% or more of the population as an aged society, and 20% or more as a super aging society [14]. As the aging society progressed, the elderly also started to be classified according to age. Several previous studies have classified elderly adults between the ages of 65 and 74 years as youngest-old, those between ages 75 and 84 years as middle-old, and those aged over 85 years as oldest-old [15]. The incidence of PC is increasing among elderly individuals, and in recent representative studies, such as the FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy study, patients were an average of 61 years old and in good general condition [12]. Likewise, a previous study that introduced the use of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine studied patients with an average age of 62 years and in good general condition [13]. Since then, many studies have been published, but elderly patients (older than 75 years of age) have been excluded from many studies; although age is an important factor in treatment determination, studies on elderly patients have small sample sizes, and there are few data, especially for the Asian population [16,17,18,19,20].
Therefore, the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy were evaluated in elderly patients older than 75 years of age with unresectable PC in this study. Additionally, the factors for better outcomes were analyzed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Study Population

This study was a single-center retrospective observational case-control study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy in elderly patients with unresectable PC. Enrolled patients were consecutively selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among the patients with PC diagnosed at Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine between 1 January 2010 and 30 November 2021, patients with resectable and borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and patients lost to follow-up after diagnosis were excluded. In addition, as an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3 or higher may affect overall survival, it was excluded from the analysis in order to compare only the chemotherapy effect. Patients with unresectable PC, including locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and metastatic PC, who were followed were included. The patients were classified into two groups: chemotherapy and nonchemotherapy groups.
Patients who were diagnosed with PC by histological and radiological diagnostic criteria and were assigned an appropriate code for PC according to the International Classification of Disease, tenth revision (ICD-10) were included. The ICD is an internationally standardized disease code, and the ICD-10 codes for PC are C25.0, C25.1, C25.2, C25.3, C25.4, and C25.9.
The resectability of PC was assessed according to the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) guidelines of 2014 and international consensus on the definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of 2017 [21,22]. The evaluation of resectability was based on computed tomography (CT) using a pancreatic protocol. Patients with PC were classified into resectable, BRPC, or unresectable groups according to the degree of invasion of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) or portal vein (PV) and the common hepatic artery (CHA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA), and celiac artery (CA). Vascular invasion was determined by the degree of fat preservation between the blood vessel and the tumor, the deformation of the vessel shape, stenosis, and occlusion. LAPC and metastatic PC were considered unresectable cancers. LAPC was defined as PC with unreconstructible SMV/portal occlusion, SMA or IVC encasement greater than 180°, or any celiac abutment. Metastatic PC was defined as PC with the presence of distant metastases, including macroscopic para-aortic lymph node (LN) and extra-abdominal LN metastasis.

2.2. Data Collection

The authors collected the patients’ demographic data and clinical variables, including body mass index (BMI); Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score; ECOG performance status; clinical details of pancreatic cancer; regimen, dose adjustment, response, and adverse effects of first line chemotherapy; survival period; and history of surgery or biliary drainage, and then compared these variables between the two groups. Descriptive statistics were used to represent the baseline characteristics of the patients.
Chemotherapy response was assessed every 2–3 months using CT, and it was graded as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1 [23].
Additionally, to evaluate comorbidities, the CCI score was applied and retrospectively investigated through electronic chart review. The CCI details included age, myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or transient ischemic attack, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), connective tissue disease, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), liver disease, diabetes mellitus (DM), hemiplegia, severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD), solid tumor, leukemia, lymphoma, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome [24]. The functional status of cancer patients was investigated based on the widely used ECOG performance status. ECOG performance status is one of the standard criteria for measuring the effect of disease on a patient’s ability to perform daily activities and is divided into stages ranging from 0, which is the standard for normal daily life, to 5, meaning death [25].

2.3. Outcomes

For chemotherapy efficacy evaluation, the median OS of all patients with or without chemotherapy was estimated as the primary endpoint. The median OS was defined as the length of time from either the date of diagnosis or the start of treatment for PC to death, and half of the patients were still alive at the end of the follow-up period.
The grade and type of toxicities were investigated in all patients who received chemotherapy, including patients for whom treatment was discontinued due to toxicities of chemotherapy. Toxicity was graded according to the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (NCI-CTCAE version 4.03) [26].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Heterogeneity was observed in the clinical features of the population groups in this study. There were statistically significant differences in age, BMI, and ECOG performance status between the chemotherapy and nonchemotherapy groups. Therefore, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize the effects of these differences in the baseline characteristics of the two groups and to reduce potential confounders using a Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for the following: age, sex, BMI, CCI score, and ECOG performance status. The authors assessed each propensity score matching of the two groups in a 1:2 ratio using Mahalanobis matching; the caliper was set to 0.1 and the predicted probability of the patient with chemotherapy versus the patient without chemotherapy was calculated among all of the patients with PC (n = 115).
Categorical variables are represented as counts and percentages and were compared using Fisher’s exact test or Pearson’s chi-square test. Continuous variables are represented as medians with standard ranges and were compared using Student’s t test. The overall survival rate with and without chemotherapy was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and log-rank tests were used to assess differences. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. All of the analyses were conducted using Stata version 15.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). For all analyses, p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

2.5. Ethics

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, the requirement for informed consent was waived (SCMC 2021-12-005), and all procedures were performed according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The researcher could not identify individuals by their data because all data were deidentified. Therefore, inclusion in the study did not jeopardize confidentiality.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Baseline Characteristics before and after PSM

A total of 295 patients aged 75 years or older were diagnosed with PC at SCMC during the study period. Among them, 180 patients were excluded, and 115 were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 1). Among the 115 patients, 47 received chemotherapy and 68 did not receive chemotherapy. In the group that did not receive chemotherapy, 22.1% of patients had worsened underlying diseases, 5.9% were unsure of the cause, and 72.1% of patients refused treatment out of fear of chemotherapy. The baseline characteristics are described in Table 1 and Table 2. The study included 51 males and 64 females, and the mean age was 83.4 ± 5.1 years. ECOG performance status was distributed as follows: 0 points, 27.8%; 1 point, 43.5%; and 2 points, 28.7%. Pancreatic head and uncinate process cancer was diagnosed in 55.7% of cases, LAPC in 18.3% of cases, and metastatic PC in 81.7% of cases. Distant metastasis was evaluated via positron emission tomography−computed tomography (PET-CT) in 53.9% of patients and CT without PET-CT in the rest of the patients. Except for four patients who could not be identified by electronic records, 74.5% of all the patients in the chemotherapy group underwent histological testing through EUS-FNA. However, 33.8% of the patients who did not receive chemotherapy did not receive a biopsy.
In the group receiving chemotherapy, the most frequently used first-line chemotherapy was nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (46.8%), and the second most commonly used first-line chemotherapy was gemcitabine monotherapy (34.0%). In the first-line chemotherapy stage, 36.2% of patients underwent dose adjustment, and stable disease (SD) was the most common response type (51.1%) at the first evaluation. Among the patients who received chemotherapy, 17.0% received second-line chemotherapy, 6.4% received third-line chemotherapy, and the average chemotherapy cycle was 6.8 ± 6.4 cycles. The most frequently used second-line chemotherapy was TS-1, a combination oral chemotherapy drug consisting of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil monotherapy (50.0%). Twelve patients (23.4%) did not have chemotherapy response evaluations; among them, 10 patients discontinued chemotherapy, and 1 patient did not undergo imaging testing for response evaluation.
Compared with the nonchemotherapy group, the chemotherapy group was younger (80.9 ± 3.9 vs. 85.1 ± 5.1 years, p < 0.001), had mostly ECOG performance status values of 0 (44.7 vs. 16.2%, p = 0.001), and had more patients with body and tail PC (55.3 vs. 44.7%, p = 0.049).
After PSM, a total of 136 patients were analyzed; 45 patients received chemotherapy and 91 patients did not receive chemotherapy. The baseline characteristics are described in Table 3. The study group included 70 males and 66 females, and the mean age was 81.0 ± 4.0 years. In terms of comorbid diseases, compared with the nonchemotherapy group, the chemotherapy group had more MIs (15.6 vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001) and COPDs (4.4 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.043).

3.2. Efficacy of Chemotherapy and Factors Affecting Survival in Elderly Patients with Unresectable PC after PSM

The primary endpoint of this study, OS, was compared between elderly patients with or without chemotherapy (Figure 2). The median OS was significantly different (203 vs. 106 days, p = 0.013).
Table 4 shows the results of univariate and multivariate analyses for the factors affecting OS in elderly patients with unresectable PC after PSM. According to the multivariate analysis, chemotherapy (HR, 0.60 (0.41–0.90), p = 0.012), BMI (HR, 1.12 (1.05–1.20), p = 0.001), ECOG performance status values of 2 (HR, 2.34 (1.21–4.52), p = 0.012), and metastatic PC (HR, 1.73 (1.01–2.96), p = 0.046) were significantly associated with mortality risk in elderly patients with unresectable PC.

3.3. Safety of Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Unresectable PC after PSM

Adverse events in the chemotherapy groups are described in Table 5. Common mild adverse events (grades 1 and 2) were fatigue (46.8%) and anorexia (17.0%), while the most common serious adverse events (grades 3 or 4) were fatigue (12.8%), diarrhea (4.3%), and vomiting (2.1%).
In the group who received chemotherapy, a total of 10 patients (21.3%) discontinued chemotherapy due to adverse events: severe fatigue (6), mild fatigue (2), fatigue and febrile neutropenia (1), and fatigue and severe diarrhea (1). According to the chemotherapy regimen, four patients in the gemcitabine monotherapy group, five in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination treatment, and one in the TS-1 monotherapy group stopped treatment during the first chemotherapy cycle. However, there were no reports of death due to severe adverse events.
The median OS was compared between the chemotherapy group with adverse event-related discontinuance and the nonchemotherapy group, but there was no statistically significant difference (152 vs. 87 days, p = 0.198). PSM did not reveal a statistically significant difference (152 vs. 106 days, p = 0.633) (Figure 2).

4. Discussion

In this study, we found that the median OS was significantly improved in elderly patients aged 75 years or older with unresectable PC who received chemotherapy. In addition, there were no deaths due to adverse reactions, and chemotherapy did not have fatal adverse events in patients over 75 years of age.
PC affects many elderly patients. In Western countries, the average age of patients with PC at diagnosis is 72 years, and more than 68% of patients are 65 years or older at diagnosis [5]. Mizrahi et al. [16] reported that the use of a modified dose of FOLFIRINOX in 24 patients with advanced PC over 75 years of age appeared to maintain toxicity and efficacy profiles similar to those in younger patients. Furthermore, a paper on gemcitabine monotherapy targeting the elderly, those over 75 years of age, reported that it is sufficiently effective and tolerable, even in elderly individuals. A recently published paper on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination therapy also reported that it is tolerable; although it does not demonstrate its superiority over monotherapy, it was found to have a positive effect on the OS in multivariate analysis [27,28]. In this study, chemotherapy, including a modified dose of FOLFIRINOX, was sufficiently effective for unresectable PC in patients aged 75 years or older, and the median OS was not significantly different from that in the nonchemotherapy group, even when chemotherapy was discontinued due to adverse events.
In addition, the authors identified good prognostic factors affecting the median OS of participants in the multivariate analysis in this study; receiving chemotherapy, lower BMI, lower ECOG performance status value, and nonmetastatic PC were identified as good prognostic factors. In fact, distant metastases, a high value of ECOG performance, and a high BMI are well-known prognostic factors related to pancreatic cancer [29,30,31]. These results are similar to the results of the present study.
The authors identified that chemotherapy was relatively tolerable in patients aged 75 years or older with unresectable PC and did not cause any deaths, and only 21.3% of patients discontinued treatment due to chemotherapy-related adverse events. However, Li et al. [18] reported that the severity or grade of chemotherapy-related toxicities was much higher in older patients. FOLFIRINOX was the main registered treatment in Li et al.’s [18] study, whereas nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination therapy was the main registered treatment in this study. In fact, FOLFIRINOX led to a higher rate of severe adverse events, including neutropenia, than gemcitabine-based drugs in previous domestic studies, so the difference in the results obtained in the study by Li et al. [18] and the present studies can be explained by the different chemotherapy regimens registered in the studies [32].
Ulrich et al. [33] reported that older patients undergoing chemotherapy experience similar adverse events to younger patients, but may experience stronger adverse events due to underlying health conditions, bone marrow changes, and other physical changes. As adverse events tend to be more pronounced in elderly patients, particularly in terms of hematologic toxicity, the chemotherapy dosage was decreased to improve tolerability [34]. In our study, 10 (21.3%) patients who received chemotherapy experienced severe adverse events, which is lower than the results of other similar studies [12,13,16]. We believe that the lower frequency of severe adverse events in this study was caused by chemotherapy with an adjustable dosage in approximately 36.2% of patients. In addition, approximately 21.3% of patients discontinued chemotherapy, and the discontinuation rate was comparable to that of other studies. In other studies, there was no significant difference in the frequency of adverse events and dose adjustment during chemotherapy between young and elderly patients in terms of chemotherapy dosage adjustment. However, permanent chemotherapy discontinuation due to adverse events was much higher in elderly individuals [35].
In previous studies, younger patients received chemotherapy more often than patients over 70 years of age. It has also been shown that relatively older people tend to avoid chemotherapy because they are afraid of adverse effects [5]. Similarly, in our study, 72.1% of patients who did not receive chemotherapy refused treatment because they were afraid of chemotherapy, which is similar to the results of previous studies. Although there is a lack of studies, it has been found that median OS does not differ by chemotherapy among elderly patients versus nonelderly patients [16]. The results of this study showed that chemotherapy was effective enough for unresectable PC in patients over 75 years of age, and no adverse events leading to death were observed.

5. Limitations

This study has limitations, as it is a single-center small-size retrospective study. In addition, during the study period, standard chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer advanced from gemcitabine monotherapy to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination therapy and FOLFIRINOX. However, gemcitabine monotherapy is still maintained as the standard chemotherapy. The majority of patients enrolled in our study received standard chemotherapy at the time. Although this study has limitations as it is not comparing single chemotherapy, it considers the perspective of efficacy and safety when standard chemotherapy is performed in elderly individuals. Therefore, we believe it provides valuable and scarce data, despite its limitations.

6. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that chemotherapy improved median OS among elderly patients. In addition, even when chemotherapy was discontinued due to adverse events, median OS was not significantly different from that of the group that did not receive chemotherapy. The number of elderly unresectable PC patients is gradually increasing and expectations for therapeutic effects are rising. The positive results obtained in the present study on chemotherapy and its adverse events among elderly unresectable PC patients will have a good influence on the establishment of evidence-based treatment for elderly patients. Considering these results, the authors suggest that it is better to actively try chemotherapy if chemotherapy is available, rather than to avoid chemotherapy out of fear of severe adverse events, not only among younger patients, but also for elderly patients with unresectable PC.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, B.S.K., O.J.L. and H.J.K.; writing—original draft preparation, B.S.K.; project administration, K.M.K. and S.G.S.; investigation, data curation, S.M.K., D.H.C. and J.Y.K.; review and editing, supervision, O.J.L. and H.J.K.; investigation, validation, formal analysis, J.H.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine; the requirement for informed consent was waived (SCMC 2021-12-005); and all procedures were performed according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was waived by the board.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to show our greatest appreciation to all professors of the Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine who provided helpful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ferlay, J.; Colombet, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Mathers, C.; Parkin, D.M.; Pineros, M.; Znaor, A.; Bray, F. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 144, 1941–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hong, S.; Won, Y.J.; Park, Y.R.; Jung, K.W.; Kong, H.J.; Lee, E.S.; Community of Population-Based Regional Cancer Registries. Cancer statistics in Korea: Incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2017. Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 52, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Huang, J.; Lok, V.; Ngai, C.H.; Zhang, L.; Yuan, J.; Lao, X.Q.; Ng, K.; Chong, C.; Zheng, Z.J.; Wong, M.C.S. Worldwide burden of, risk factors for, and trends in pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 744–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sehgal, R.; Alsharedi, M.; Larck, C.; Edwards, P.; Gress, T. Pancreatic cancer survival in elderly patients treated with chemotherapy. Pancreas 2014, 43, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tas, F.; Sen, F.; Keskin, S.; Kilic, L.; Yildiz, I. Prognostic factors in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Older patients are associated with reduced overall survival. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 1, 788–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Parmar, A.D.; Vargas, G.M.; Tamirisa, N.P.; Sheffield, K.M.; Riall, T.S. Trajectory of care and use of multimodality therapy in older patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Surgery 2014, 156, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Van Der Geest, L.G.M.; Mohammad, N.H.; Besselink, M.G.H.; Lemmens, V.; Portielje, J.E.A.; Van Laarhoven, H.W.M.; Wilmink, J.H.W.; Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Nationwide trends in chemotherapy use and survival of elderly patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Cancer Med. 2017, 6, 2840–2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lamont, E.B.; Schilsky, R.L.; He, Y.; Muss, H.; Cohen, H.J.; Hurria, A.; Meilleur, A.; Kindler, H.L.; Venook, A.; Lilenbaum, R.; et al. Generalizability of trial results to elderly Medicare patients with advanced solid tumors (Alliance 70802). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2015, 107, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McGuigan, A.; Kelly, P.; Turkington, R.C.; Jones, C.; Coleman, H.G.; McCain, R.S. Pancreatic cancer: A review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 24, 4846–4861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Burris, H.A.; Moore, M.J.; Andersen, J.; Green, M.R.; Rothenberg, M.L.; Modiano, M.R.; Cripps, M.C.; Portenoy, R.K.; Storniolo, A.M.; Tarassoff, P.; 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, 2403–2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vaccaro, V.; Sperduti, I.; Milella, M. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 365, 768–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Von Hoff, D.D.; Ervin, T.; Arena, F.P.; Chiorean, E.G.; Infante, J.; Moore, M.; Seay, T.; Tjulandin, S.A.; Ma, W.W.; Saleh, M.N.; et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 1691–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, J.-j.; Kim, J. A study of health care system housing and environment of the elderly. J. Korea Inst. Electron. Commun. Sci. 2012, 7, 925–930. [Google Scholar]
  15. Alterovitz, S.S.; Mendelsohn, G.A. Relationship goals of middle-aged, young-old, and old-old internet daters: An analysis of online personal ads. J. Aging Stud. 2013, 27, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mizrahi, J.D.; Rogers, J.E.; Hess, K.R.; Wolff, R.A.; Varadhachary, G.R.; Javle, M.M.; Shroff, R.T.; Ho, L.; Fogelman, D.R.; Raghav, K.P.S.; et al. Modified FOLFIRINOX in pancreatic cancer patients age 75 or older. Pancreatology 2020, 20, 501–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Macchini, M.; Chiaravalli, M.; Zanon, S.; Peretti, U.; Mazza, E.; Gianni, L.; Reni, M. Chemotherapy in elderly patients with pancreatic cancer: Efficacy, feasibility and future perspectives. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2019, 72, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, X.; Huang, D.B.; Zhang, Q.; Guo, C.X.; Fu, Q.H.; Zhang, X.C.; Tang, T.Y.; Su, W.; Chen, Y.W.; Chen, W.; et al. The efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy in the elderly with advanced pancreatic cancer. Pancreatology 2020, 20, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kuroda, T.; Kumagi, T.; Yokota, T.; Azemoto, N.; Hasebe, A.; Seike, H.; Nishiyama, M.; Inada, N.; Shibata, N.; Miyata, H. Efficacy of chemotherapy in elderly patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: A multicenter review of 895 patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017, 17, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yamagishi, Y.; Higuchi, H.; Izumiya, M.; Sakai, G.; Iizuka, H.; Nakamura, S.; Adachi, M.; Hozawa, S.; Takaishi, H.; Hibi, T. Gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 45, 1146–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bockhorn, M.; Uzunoglu, F.G.; Adham, M.; Imrie, C.; Milicevic, M.; Sandberg, A.A.; Asbun, H.J.; Bassi, C.; Buchler, M.; Charnley, R.M.; et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2014, 155, 977–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Isaji, S.; Mizuno, S.; Windsor, J.A.; Bassi, C.; Fernández-del Castillo, C.; Hackert, T.; Hayasaki, A.; Katz, M.H.; Kim, S.-W.; Kishiwada, M. International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017. Pancreatology 2018, 18, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Eisenhauer, E.A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Charlson, M.E.; Pompei, P.; Ales, K.L.; MacKenzie, C.R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J. Chronic Dis. 1987, 40, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Oken, M.M.; Creech, R.H.; Tormey, D.C.; Horton, J.; Davis, T.E.; McFadden, E.T.; Carbone, P.P. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 1982, 5, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
  27. Hentic, O.; Dreyer, C.; Rebours, V.; Zappa, M.; Lévy, P.; Raymond, E.; Ruszniewski, P.; Hammel, P. Gemcitabine in elderly patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. World J. Gastroenterol. WJG 2011, 17, 3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ohwada, S.; Todaka, A.; Nakase, H.; Shirasu, H.; Kawakami, T.; Hamauchi, S.; Tsushima, T.; Yokota, T.; Onozawa, Y.; Yasui, H. Effectiveness and safety of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in elderly patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study. Investig. New Drugs 2022, 40, 1106–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dell’Aquila, E.; Fulgenzi, C.A.M.; Minelli, A.; Citarella, F.; Stellato, M.; Pantano, F.; Russano, M.; Cursano, M.C.; Napolitano, A.; Zeppola, T. Prognostic and predictive factors in pancreatic cancer. Oncotarget 2020, 11, 924–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Le, N.; Sund, M.; Vinci, A.; Gems Collaborating Group of Pancreas. Prognostic and predictive markers in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Dig. Liver Dis. 2016, 48, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Majumder, K.; Gupta, A.; Arora, N.; Singh, P.P.; Singh, S. Premorbid obesity and mortality in patients with pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 14, 355–368.e2; quiz e332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cho, I.R.; Kang, H.; Jo, J.H.; Lee, H.S.; Chung, M.J.; Park, J.Y.; Park, S.W.; Song, S.Y.; An, C.; Park, M.S.; et al. FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: Single-center cohort study. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2020, 12, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wedding, U.; Honecker, F.; Bokemeyer, C.; Pientka, L.; Höffken, K. Tolerance to chemotherapy in elderly patients with cancer. Cancer Control J. Moffitt Cancer Cent. 2007, 14, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hwang, I.G.; Kwon, M.; Kim, J.W.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, Y.-G.; Kim, J.Y.; Koh, S.-J.; Ko, Y.H.; Shin, S.H.; Hong, S. Prevalence and predictive factors for upfront dose reduction of the first cycle of first-line chemotherapy in older adults with metastatic solid cancer: Korean cancer study group (KCSG) multicenter study. Cancers 2021, 13, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Berger, A.K.; Haag, G.M.; Ehmann, M.; Byl, A.; Jäger, D.; Springfeld, C. Palliative chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort analysis of efficacy and toxicity of the FOLFIRINOX regimen focusing on the older patient. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017, 17, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 03334 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic flow diagram of the selection and disposition of patients. SCMC, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine.
Figure 1. Schematic flow diagram of the selection and disposition of patients. SCMC, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine.
Jcm 12 03334 g001
Jcm 12 03334 g002a 550Jcm 12 03334 g002b 550
Figure 2. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival after propensity score matching. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the group receiving chemotherapy than in the group not receiving chemotherapy on the log-rank test (203 vs. 106 days, p = 0.013); (B) Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival before propensity score matching. There was no statistically significant difference in the median OS between the group who stopped chemotherapy due to toxicity and the group who did not receive chemotherapy (152 vs. 87 days, p = 0.198). (C) Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival after propensity score matching. There was no statistically significant difference in the median OS between the group who stopped chemotherapy due to toxicity and the group who did not receive chemotherapy according to the log-rank test (152 vs. 106 days, p = 0.633).
Figure 2. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival after propensity score matching. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the group receiving chemotherapy than in the group not receiving chemotherapy on the log-rank test (203 vs. 106 days, p = 0.013); (B) Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival before propensity score matching. There was no statistically significant difference in the median OS between the group who stopped chemotherapy due to toxicity and the group who did not receive chemotherapy (152 vs. 87 days, p = 0.198). (C) Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival after propensity score matching. There was no statistically significant difference in the median OS between the group who stopped chemotherapy due to toxicity and the group who did not receive chemotherapy according to the log-rank test (152 vs. 106 days, p = 0.633).
Jcm 12 03334 g002aJcm 12 03334 g002b
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer before propensity score matching.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer before propensity score matching.
Total Patient
(n = 115)		Chemotherapyp Value
Yes
(n = 47)		No
(n = 68)
Age, years83.4 ± 5.180.9 ± 3.985.1 ± 5.1<0.001
Sex, Female64 (55.7)22 (46.9)42 (61.8)0.112
BMI, kg/m221.3 ± 3.021.9 ± 3.020.9 ± 3.00.087
Charlson comorbidity index9.7 ± 1.69.5 ± 1.99.8 ± 1.40.312
MI10 (8.7)7 (14.9)3 (4.4)0.088
CHF2 (1.7)1 (2.1)1 (1.5)>0.999
CVA9 (7.8)5 (10.6)4 (5.9)0.483
COPD3 (2.6)2 (4.3)1 (1.5)0.566
Connective tissue disease3 (2.6)1 (2.1)2 (2.9)>0.999
PUD1 (0.9)1 (2.1)0 (0.0)0.409
Liver disease, severe2 (1.7)1 (2.1)1 (1.5)>0.999
DM 0.158
Uncomplicated15 (13.0)9 (19.2)6 (8.8)
End-organ damage1 (0.9)0 (0.0)1 (1.5)
CKD2 (1.7)1 (2.1)1 (1.5)>0.999
ECOG performance 0.001
032 (27.8)21 (44.7)11 (16.2)
150 (43.5)19 (40.4)31 (45.6)
233 (28.7)7 (14.9)26 (38.2)
Biliary drainage, yes53 (46.1)19 (40.4)34 (50.0)0.311
Location of pancreatic cancer 0.049
Head or uncinate64 (55.7)21 (44.7)43 (63.2)
Body or tail51 (44.3)26 (55.3)25 (36.8)
Resectability of pancreatic cancer 0.486
Locally advanced21 (18.3)10 (21.3)11 (16.2)
Metastatic94 (81.7)37 (78.7)57 (83.8)
PET-CT62 (53.9)35 (74.5)27 (39.7)<0.001
Histologic diagnosis <0.001
None23 (20.0)0 (0.0)23 (33.8)
EUS-FNA56 (48.7)35 (74.5)21 (30.9)
ERCP & Endoscopic route *15 (13.0)3 (6.4)12 (17.7)
Percutaneous route **16 (13.9)5 (10.6)11 (16.2)
Unknown5 (4.4)4 (8.5)1 (1.5)
Median Overall survival124 (65–250)224 (105–461)89 (47–202)<0.001
Values are presented median ± ranges or n (%); N, number of patients; %, percentage; BMI, body mass index; MI, myocardial infarction; CHF, congestive heart failure; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PUD, peptic ulcer disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; CKD, chronic kidney disease; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PET-CT, positron emission tomography−computed tomography; EUS-FNA, endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; * Endoscopic biopsy of the direct invasion of other organs of primary pancreatic cancer; ** Percutaneous biopsy of direct invasion of other organs and metastatic lesions of primary pancreatic cancer.
Table
Table 2. Details of the chemotherapy group with unresectable pancreatic cancer (n = 47).
Table 2. Details of the chemotherapy group with unresectable pancreatic cancer (n = 47).
No. of Patients (%)
Firstline Chemotherapy, regimen
5-FU1 (2.1)
Etoposide + cisplatin1 (2.1)
FOLFIRINOX4 (8.5)
Gemcitabine16 (34.0)
Gemcitabine + Cisplatin1 (2.1)
Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel22 (46.8)
TS-12 (4.3)
Firstline Chemotherapy, dose
Full dose30 (63.8)
Adjust dose17 (36.2)
Firstline Chemotherapy, response *
PR10 (21.3)
SD24 (51.1)
PD2 (4.3)
Not assessed **11 (23.4)
Received chemotherapy
First-line39 (83.0)
Second-line5 (10.6)
Third-line3 (6.4)
Second-line chemotherapy, regimen
FOLFIRINOX1 (12.5)
Gemcitabine1 (12.5)
Gemcitabine + Erlotinib1 (12.5)
Capecitabine1 (12.5)
TS-14 (50.0)
Mean chemotherapy cycle6.8 ± 6.4
BMI, body mass index; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; 5-FU, 5-Fluorouracil; FOLFIRINOX, combination regimen of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; TS-1, Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil combined oral chemotherapy drug; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, Progression disease; * Chemotherapy response was assessed every 2–3 months using CT and graded according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. ** 11 patients were not assessed for chemotherapy response because 10 discontinued chemotherapy and 1 did not have imaging tests for response evaluation.
Table
Table 3. Propensity score matched baseline characteristics of the patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.
Table 3. Propensity score matched baseline characteristics of the patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.
Total Patient
(n = 136)		Chemotherapyp Value
Yes
(n = 45)		No
(n = 91)
Age, years81.0 ± 4.180.8 ± 3.681.1 ± 4.30.698
Sex, Female66 (48.5)21 (46.7)45 (49.5)0.760
BMI, kg/m221.6 ± 3.121.8 ± 3.021.6 ± 3.20.648
Charlson comorbidity index9.4 ± 1.69.4 ± 1.99.3 ± 1.40.634
MI7 (5.2)7 (15.6)0 (0.0)<0.001
CHF1 (0.7)1 (2.2)0 (0.0)0.331
CVA12 (8.8)5 (11.1)7 (7.7)0.531
COPD2 (1.5)2 (4.4)0 (0.0)0.043
Connective tissue disease1 (0.7)1 (2.2)0 (0.0)0.153
PUD1 (0.7)1 (2.2)0 (0.0)0.153
Liver disease, severe1 (0.7)1 (2.2)0 (0.0)0.153
DM, uncomplicated19 (14.0)9 (20.0)10 (11.0)0.190
CKD4 (2.9)0 (0.0)4 (4.4)0.153
ECOG performance 0.390
064 (47.1)20 (44.4)44 (48.3)
158 (42.6)18 (40.0)40 (44.0)
214 (10.3)7 (15.6)7 (7.7)
Biliary drainage, yes59 (43.4)18 (40.0)41 (45.1)0.576
Location of pancreatic cancer 0.078
Head or uncinate75 (55.2)20 (44.4)55 (60.4)
Body or tail61 (44.8)25 (55.6)36 (39.6)
Resectability of pancreatic cancer 0.051
Locally advanced19 (14.0)10 (22.2)9 (9.9)
Metastatic117 (86.0)35 (77.8)82 (90.1)
PET-CT47 (34.6)11 (24.4)36 (39.6)0.081
Histologic diagnosis <0.001
None16 (11.8)0 (0.0)16 (17.6)
EUS-FNA81 (59.6)35 (77.8)46 (50.6)
ERCP & Endoscopic route *13 (9.6)3 (6.7)10 (11.0)
Percutaneous route **23 (16.9)4 (8.9)19 (20.9)
Unknown3 (2.2)3 (6.7)0 (0.0)
Median Overall survival126 (64–244)224 (105–461)124 (41–222)0.001
Values are presented as the median ± range or n (%); N, number of patients; %, percentage; BMI, body mass index; MI, myocardial infarction; CHF, congestive heart failure; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PUD, peptic ulcer disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; CKD, chronic kidney disease; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PET-CT, positron emission tomography−computed tomography; EUS-FNA, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; * Endoscopic biopsy of the direct invasion of other organs of primary pancreatic cancer; ** Percutaneous biopsy of direct invasion of other organs and metastatic lesions of primary pancreatic cancer.
Table
Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analyses for the factors of mortality in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer after propensity score matching.
Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analyses for the factors of mortality in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer after propensity score matching.
UnivariateMultivariate
HR (95% CI)p ValueHR (95% CI)p Value
Chemotherapy
Yes0.64 (0.44–0.92)0.0170.60 (0.41–0.90)0.012
BMI1.10 (1.03–1.18)0.0031.12 (1.05–1.20)0.001
Charlson comorbidity index1.13 (1.00–1.27)0.056
ECOG performance
0Reference Reference
11.51 (1.05–2.18)0.0281.42 (0.97–2.08)0.070
22.61 (1.44–4.73)0.0012.34 (1.21–4.52)0.012
Biliary drainage, yes1.02 (0.72–1.45)0.892
Location of pancreatic cancer
Head or uncinatereference
Body or tail0.91 (0.64–1.28)0.585
Resectability of pancreatic cancer
Locally advancedreference
Metastatic1.83 (1.12–2.99)0.0161.73 (1.01–2.96)0.046
Firstline Chemotherapy regimen
5-FUreference
Etoposide + cisplatin-
FOLFIRINOX0.22 (0.02–3.02)0.258
Gemcitabine1.74 (0.23–13.57)0.580
Gemcitabine + Cisplatin0.25 (0.01–5.01)0.364
Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel2.41 (0.32–18.18)0.394
TS-10.67 (0.06–8.25)0.758
Firstline Chemotherapy dose
Full dosereference
Adjust dose1.38 (0.45–2.56)0.305
Firstline Chemotherapy response *
PRreference
SD1.18 (0.54–2.58)0.680
PD7.30 (1.40–37.94)0.018
BMI, body mass index; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; FOLFIRINOX, combination regimen of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; TS-1, Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil combined oral chemotherapy drug; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progression disease; * Chemotherapy response evaluation was assessed every 2–3 months using CT and graded according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.
Table
Table 5. Adverse events of chemotherapy.
Table 5. Adverse events of chemotherapy.
Adverse Events
Grade 1 or 2
No. of Patients (%)		Grade 3 or 4
No. of Patients (%)
Hematologic
Neutropenia4 (8.5)0 (0.0)
Febrile-neutropenia0 (0.0)1 (2.1)
Thrombocytopenia1 (2.1)0 (0.0)
Nonhematologic
Fatigue22 (46.8)6 (12.8)
Anorexia8 (17.0)0 (0.0)
Vomiting1 (2.1)1 (2.1)
Diarrhea0 (0.0)2 (4.3)
Constipation3 (6.4)0 (0.0)
Sensory neuropathy2 (4.3)0 (0.0)
Mucositis1 (2.1)0 (0.0)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kwan, B.S.; Lee, O.J.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, K.M.; Shim, S.G.; Cho, D.H.; Kong, S.M.; Kim, J.Y.; Ji, J.H. Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3334. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093334

AMA Style

Kwan BS, Lee OJ, Kim HJ, Kim KM, Shim SG, Cho DH, Kong SM, Kim JY, Ji JH. Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(9):3334. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kwan, Byung Soo, Ok Jae Lee, Hyun Jin Kim, Kwang Min Kim, Sang Goon Shim, Dae Hyeon Cho, Sung Min Kong, Jun Young Kim, and Jun Ho Ji. 2023. "Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 9: 3334. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093334

APA Style

Kwan, B. S., Lee, O. J., Kim, H. J., Kim, K. M., Shim, S. G., Cho, D. H., Kong, S. M., Kim, J. Y., & Ji, J. H. (2023). Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(9), 3334. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093334

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop