Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • About CBM
    • Editorial Board
    • Announcement
  • Articles
    • Ahead of print
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Collections
    • Cover Story
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Resources
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • For Reviewers
    • Become a Reviewer
    • Instructions for Reviewers
    • Resources
    • Outstanding Reviewer
  • Subscription
  • Alerts
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • Table of Contents
  • Contact us
  • Other Publications
    • cbm

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Biology & Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • cbm
  • My alerts
Cancer Biology & Medicine

Advanced Search

 

  • Home
  • About
    • About CBM
    • Editorial Board
    • Announcement
  • Articles
    • Ahead of print
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Collections
    • Cover Story
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Resources
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • For Reviewers
    • Become a Reviewer
    • Instructions for Reviewers
    • Resources
    • Outstanding Reviewer
  • Subscription
  • Alerts
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • Table of Contents
  • Contact us
  • Follow cbm on Twitter
  • Visit cbm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Article

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 vs. gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in treatment-naïve advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Zhou Zhu, Hui Tang, Jinrong Ying, Yuejuan Cheng, Xiang Wang, Yingyi Wang and Chunmei Bai
Cancer Biology & Medicine October 2023, 20 (10) 765-778; DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2023.0189
Zhou Zhu
1Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
24+4 Medical Doctor Program, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hui Tang
1Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jinrong Ying
1Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yuejuan Cheng
1Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiang Wang
1Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yingyi Wang
1Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Yingyi Wang
  • For correspondence: wangyingyi{at}pumch.cn baichunmei{at}pumch.cn
Chunmei Bai
1Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Chunmei Bai
  • For correspondence: wangyingyi{at}pumch.cn baichunmei{at}pumch.cn
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) for all patients.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) for matched patients.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Forest plot of overall survival in the selected subgroups.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Forest plot of progression-free survival in the selected subgroups.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    Schematic of the mechanisms of GS and GnP. For GS, S-1 is an oral derivative of the 5-FU prodrug combined with 2 modulators. The expression of hENT1, the mediator of gemcitabine uptake, is upregulated by 5-FU. For GnP, nab-paclitaxel increases gemcitabine levels by inhibiting the gemcitabine-metabolizing enzyme cytidine deaminase. FT, tegafur; CDHP, gimeracil; Oxo, oteracil.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplementary Materials
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Baseline characteristics of the 300 patients

    CharacteristicsOverall (n = 300)First-line chemotherapy regimenP value
    GS (n = 84)GnP (n = 216)
    Gender0.324
     Male183 (61.0%)47 (56.0%)136 (63.0%)
     Female117 (39.0%)37 (44.0%)80 (37.0%)
    Age, median (range), years61 (32, 83)63 (38, 83)60 (32, 77)0.017
    ECOG0.112
     0156 (52.0%)48 (57.1%)108 (50.0%)
     1139 (46.3%)33 (39.3%)106 (49.1%)
     25 (1.7%)3 (3.6%)2 (0.9%)
    BMI, median (range), kg/m221.6 (15.0, 35.3)21.6 (15.0, 27.6)21.5 (15.6, 35.3)0.978
    Smoking history0.081
     Yes122 (40.7%)27 (32.1%)95 (44.0%)
     No178 (59.3%)57 (67.9%)121 (56.0%)
    Drinking history0.121
     Yes70 (23.3%)14 (16.7%)56 (25.9%)
     No230 (76.7%)70 (83.3%)160 (74.1%)
    Diabetes history1.000
     Yes92 (30.7%)26 (31.0%)66 (30.6%)
     No208 (69.3%)58 (69.0%)150 (69.4%)
    Surgery before chemotherapy0.742
     Yes48 (16.0%)12 (14.3%)36 (16.7%)
     No252 (84.0%)72 (85.7%)180 (83.3%)
    CA19-9, median (range), U/mL418 (0, 400,000)343 (0, 400,000)478 (0.3, 86,900)0.300
    Baseline stage0.492
     Locally advanced111 (37.0%)28 (33.3%)83 (38.4%)
     Metastatic189 (63.0%)56 (66.7%)133 (61.6%)
    Liver metastases0.738
     Yes140 (46.7%)41 (48.8%)99 (45.8%)
     No160 (53.3%)43 (51.2%)117 (54.2%)
    Multiple metastases0.347
     Yes47 (15.7%)10 (11.9%)37 (17.1%)
     No253 (84.3%)74 (88.1%)179 (82.9%)
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Response to chemotherapy among the 300 patients

    ItemsOverall (n = 300)First-line chemotherapy regimenP value
    GS (n = 84)GnP (n = 216)
    Best response0.328
     CR000
     PR33 (11.0%)12 (14.3%)21 (9.7%)
     SD196 (65.3%)56 (66.7%)140 (64.8%)
     PD71 (23.7%)16 (19.0%)55 (25.5%)
    ORR11.0%14.3%9.7%0.353
    DCR76.3%81.0%74.5%0.307
    Change in CA19-90.104
     Not expressed53 (17.7%)20 (23.8%)33 (15.3%)
     Declined > 30%162 (54.0%)47 (56.0%)115 (53.2%)
     Declined ≤ 30%67 (22.3%)15 (17.9%)52 (24.1%)
     Unknown18 (6.0%)2 (2.4%)16 (7.4%)

    CR, complete response; DCR, disease control rate; ORR, objective response rate; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

      • View popup
      Table 3

      Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival

      VariablesUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
      HR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
      Age, years0.99 (0.97–1.01)0.297--
      Gender (male vs. female)1.01 (0.75–1.38)0.925--
      ECOG (1 vs. 0)1.85 (1.37–2.51)< 0.0011.93 (1.40–2.64)< 0.001
      ECOG (2 vs. 0)0.59 (0.14–2.40)0.4590.71 (0.17–2.92)0.636
      BMI, kg/m20.98 (0.93–1.03)0.433--
      Smoking history (yes vs. no)0.96 (0.70–1.30)0.771--
      Drinking history (yes vs. no)0.85 (0.59–1.22)0.380--
      Diabetes history (yes vs. no)1.06 (0.77–1.46)0.718--
      Surgery before chemotherapy (yes vs. no)0.90 (0.59–1.36)0.605--
      Baseline stage (metastatic vs. locally advanced)1.70 (1.23–2.34)0.0010.94 (0.57–1.53)0.789
      Baseline CA19-9 level, U/mL1.00 (1.00–1.00)< 0.0011.00 (1.00–1.00)< 0.001
      Liver metastases (yes vs. no)1.93 (1.43–2.62)< 0.0012.12 (1.34–3.34)0.001
      Multiple metastases (yes vs. no)1.57 (1.05–2.33)0.0261.20 (0.78–1.84)0.419
      First-line regimen (GS vs. GnP)0.63 (0.45–0.89)0.0080.69 (0.48–0.97)0.035

      The bold values indicate P < 0.1 in the univariable analysis and P < 0.05 in the multivariable analysis.

        • View popup
        Table 4

        Univariate and multivariate analyses of progression-free survival

        VariablesUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
        HR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
        Age, years0.99 (0.98–1.01)0.211--
        Gender (male vs. female)0.98 (0.76–1.28)0.894--
        ECOG (1 vs. 0)1.39 (1.07–1.80)0.0131.49 (1.14–1.94)0.004
        ECOG (2 vs. 0)1.56 (0.64–3.82)0.3321.95 (0.79–4.81)0.148
        BMI, kg/m20.98 (0.94–1.03)0.473--
        Smoking history (yes vs. no)0.94 (0.72–1.22)0.641--
        Drinking history (yes vs. no)0.86 (0.63–1.17)0.343--
        Diabetes history (yes vs. no)1.26 (0.96–1.66)0.101--
        Surgery before chemotherapy (yes vs. no)1.09 (0.77–1.56)0.619--
        Baseline stage (metastatic vs. locally advanced)1.80 (1.37–2.37)< 0.0011.26 (0.84–1.89)0.259
        Baseline CA19-9 level, U/mL1.00 (1.00–1.00)0.0761.00 (1.00–1.00)0.302
        Liver metastases (yes vs. no)1.98 (1.52–2.57)< 0.0011.78 (1.22–2.59)0.003
        Multiple metastases (yes vs. no)1.44 (1.02–2.04)0.0371.06 (0.73–1.53)0.758
        First-line regimen (GS vs. GnP)0.82 (0.62–1.08)0.157--

        The bold values indicate P < 0.1 in the univariable analysis and P < 0.05 in the multivariable analysis.

          • View popup
          Table 5

          Second-line and third-line chemotherapy (n = 272)

          First-line chemotherapy regimen
          GS (n = 82)GnP (n = 190)
          Overall
           Second-line58 (70.7%)116 (61.1%)
           Third-line28 (34.1%)62 (32.6%)
           Supportive care12 (14.6%)40 (21.1%)
           Death3 (3.7%)6 (3.2%)
           Unknown9 (11.0%)28 (14.7%)
          Second-line
           SOX6 (10.3%)41 (35.3%)
           GS6 (10.3%)8 (6.9%)
           GnP15 (25.9%)8 (6.9%)
           Gemcitabine2 (3.4%)2 (1.7%)
           GEMOX6 (10.3%)4 (3.4%)
           FOLFIRINOX0 (0.0%)23 (19.8%)
           FOLFIRI1 (1.7%)4 (3.4%)
           FOLFOX0 (0.0%)3 (2.6%)
           S-12 (3.4%)9 (7.8%)
           Irinotecan + S-10 (0.0%)2 (1.7%)
           XELOX6 (10.3%)2 (1.7%)
           PARPi0 (0.0%)3 (2.6%)
           Nab-P2 (3.4%)0 (0.0%)
           Nab-P + S-12 (3.4%)1 (0.9%)
           Nab-P + oxaliplatin5 (8.6%)0 (0.0%)
           Others5 (8.6%)6 (5.2%)

          FOLFIRI, irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin; FOLFOX, oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil and leucovorin; GEMOX, gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin; Nab-P, nab-paclitaxel; PARPi, poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor; SOX, S-1 plus oxaliplatin; XELOX, capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.

            • View popup
            Table 6

            Grade 3 or 4 AEs (n = 245)

            First-line chemotherapy regimenP value
            GS (n = 67)GnP (n = 178)
            Overall0.329
             No25 (37.3%)53 (29.8%)
             Yes42 (62.7%)125 (70.2%)
            Hematologic
            Leukopenia0.049
             No57 (85.1%)128 (71.9%)
             Yes10 (14.9%)50 (28.1%)
            Neutropenia0.988
             No35 (52.2%)95 (53.4%)
             Yes32 (47.8%)83 (46.6%)
            Thrombocytopenia0.386
             No60 (89.6%)167 (93.8%)
             Yes7 (10.4%)11 (6.2%)
            Anemia0.839
             No64 (95.5%)167 (93.8%)
             Yes3 (4.5%)11 (6.2%)
            Nonhematologic
            Fatigue0.839
             No64 (95.5%)167 (93.8%)
             Yes3 (4.5%)11 (6.2%)
            Nausea0.614
             No64 (95.5%)174 (97.8%)
             Yes3 (4.5%)4 (2.2%)
            Vomiting0.896
             No66 (98.5%)173 (97.2%)
             Yes1 (1.5%)5 (2.8%)
            Rash1.000
             No64 (95.5%)170 (95.5%)
             Yes3 (4.5%)8 (4.5%)
            Diarrhea0.893
             No65 (97.0%)175 (98.3%)
             Yes2 (3.0%)3 (1.7%)
            Anorexia1.000
             No64 (95.5%)170 (95.5%)
             Yes3 (4.5%)8 (4.5%)
            Bilirubin0.085
             No63 (94.0%)176 (98.9%)
             Yes4 (6.0%)2 (1.1%)
            ALT/AST1.000
             No66 (98.5%)175 (98.3%)
             Yes1 (1.5%)3 (1.7%)
            Hand-foot syndrome0.611
             No66 (98.5%)178 (100.0%)
             Yes1 (1.5%)0 (0.0%)
            Oral mucositis0.085
             No63 (94.0%)176 (98.9%)
             Yes4 (6.0%)2 (1.1%)
            Peripheral neuropathy0.135
             No67 (100.0%)169 (94.9%)
             Yes0 (0.0%)9 (5.1%)

          Supplementary Materials

          • Figures
          • Tables
          • [cbm-20-765-s001.pdf]
          PreviousNext
          Back to top

          In this issue

          Cancer Biology & Medicine: 20 (10)
          Cancer Biology & Medicine
          Vol. 20, Issue 10
          15 Oct 2023
          • Table of Contents
          • Index by author
          Print
          Download PDF
          Email Article

          Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cancer Biology & Medicine.

          NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

          Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
          Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 vs. gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in treatment-naïve advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
          (Your Name) has sent you a message from Cancer Biology & Medicine
          (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cancer Biology & Medicine web site.
          Citation Tools
          Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 vs. gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in treatment-naïve advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
          Zhou Zhu, Hui Tang, Jinrong Ying, Yuejuan Cheng, Xiang Wang, Yingyi Wang, Chunmei Bai
          Cancer Biology & Medicine Oct 2023, 20 (10) 765-778; DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2023.0189

          Citation Manager Formats

          • BibTeX
          • Bookends
          • EasyBib
          • EndNote (tagged)
          • EndNote 8 (xml)
          • Medlars
          • Mendeley
          • Papers
          • RefWorks Tagged
          • Ref Manager
          • RIS
          • Zotero
          Share
          Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 vs. gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in treatment-naïve advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
          Zhou Zhu, Hui Tang, Jinrong Ying, Yuejuan Cheng, Xiang Wang, Yingyi Wang, Chunmei Bai
          Cancer Biology & Medicine Oct 2023, 20 (10) 765-778; DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2023.0189
          Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
          • Tweet Widget
          • Facebook Like
          • Google Plus One

          Jump to section

          • Article
            • Abstract
            • Introduction
            • Materials and methods
            • Results
            • Discussion
            • Conclusions
            • Supporting Information
            • Conflict of interest statement
            • Author contributions
            • Data availability statement
            • Acknowledgements
            • Footnotes
            • References
          • Figures & Data
          • Info & Metrics
          • References
          • PDF

          Related Articles

          • No related articles found.
          • Google Scholar

          Cited By...

          • Clinical outcomes of second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a real-world study
          • Graph Attention Networks for Drug Combination Discovery: Targeting Pancreatic Cancer Genes with RAIN Protocol
          • Google Scholar

          More in this TOC Section

          • Virtual histology imaging of lymph nodes via dynamic full-field optical coherence tomography and deep learning to differentiate metastasis
          • Integrative multi-omic analysis identified ERBB2 mutations and senescence-driven immune suppression as dual therapeutic targets in LAR triple-negative breast cancer
          • Metabolic engineering of SLC38A2 reprograms glutamine utilization and enhances CAR-macrophage antitumor function in solid tumors
          Show more Original Article

          Similar Articles

          Keywords

          • Advanced pancreatic cancer
          • first-line chemotherapy
          • gemcitabine
          • S-1
          • nab-paclitaxel

          Navigate

          • Home
          • Current Issue

          More Information

          • About CBM
          • About CACA
          • About TMUCIH
          • Editorial Board
          • Subscription

          For Authors

          • Instructions for authors
          • Journal Policies
          • Submit a Manuscript

          Journal Services

          • Email Alerts
          • Facebook
          • RSS Feeds
          • Twitter

           

          © 2026 Cancer Biology & Medicine

          Powered by HighWire