Randomized Phase III Study of Exatecan and Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Untreated Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (27) ◽  
pp. 4441-4447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa ◽  
Richard Letourneau ◽  
Graydon Harker ◽  
Manuel Modiano ◽  
Herbert Hurwitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Water Soluble ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Purpose Exatecan mesylate is a hexacyclic, water-soluble, topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Exatecan has single-agent and combination activity with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial comparing exatecan plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted. Patients and Methods Eligibility criteria included Karnofsky performance status ≥ 60%, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and no prior chemotherapy. Radiation alone for locally advanced disease was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis. For the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm, exatecan 2.0 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Gemcitabine alone was dosed at 1,000 mg/m2 up to 7 weeks in the first cycle, then once a week for the first 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Tumor assessment was performed every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. Results From August 2001 to January 2003, 349 patients were randomly assigned, 175 to exatecan plus gemcitabine and 174 to gemcitabine alone. Twenty-four patients (6.9%) were not treated. The median survival time was 6.7 months for exatecan plus gemcitabine and 6.2 months for gemcitabine alone (P = .52). One complete response (CR; < 1%) and 11 partial responses (PRs; 6.3%) were observed in the exatecan plus gemcitabine treatment group, and one CR (< 1%) and eight PRs (4.6%) were observed in the gemcitabine-alone group. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were higher for the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm versus the gemcitabine alone arm; neutropenia (30% v 15%) and thrombocytopenia (15% v 4%). Conclusion Exatecan plus gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Clinical Benefit and Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine Versus Gemcitabine Alone: A Randomized Multicenter Phase III Clinical Trial—SAKK 44/00–CECOG/PAN.1.3.001

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (22) ◽  
pp. 3695-3701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürg Bernhard ◽  
Daniel Dietrich ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Daniela Gerber ◽  
György Bodoky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii

Purpose To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for ≥ 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. Results Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). Conclusion There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (16) ◽  
pp. 2212-2217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Herrmann ◽  
György Bodoky ◽  
Thomas Ruhstaller ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
Emilio Bajetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Score ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Good Performance Status ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeThis phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent.ResultsA total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms.ConclusionGemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.

Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Tipifarnib Compared With Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 1430-1438 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
H. van de Velde ◽  
P. Karasek ◽  
H. Oettle ◽  
W.L. Vervenne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To determine whether addition of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib (Zarnestra, R115777; Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium) to standard gemcitabine therapy improves overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared gemcitabine + tipifarnib versus gemcitabine + placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously untreated with systemic therapy. Tipifarnib was given at 200 mg bid orally continuously; gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then weekly × 3 every 4 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points included 6-month and 1-year survival rates, progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. Results Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant differences in survival parameters were observed. The median overall survival for the experimental arm was 193 v 182 days for the control arm (P = .75); 6-month and 1-year survival rates were 53% and 27% v 49% and 24% for the control arm, respectively; median progression-free survival was 112 v 109 days for the control arm. Ten drug-related deaths were reported for the experimental arm and seven for the control arm. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia grade ≥ 3 were observed in 40% and 15% in the experimental arm versus 30% and 12% in the control arm. Incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were similar in two groups. Conclusion The combination of gemcitabine and tipifarnib has an acceptable toxicity profile but does not prolong overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer compared with single-agent gemcitabine.

The prognostic value of polymorphisms in the insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR) pathway in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4500-4500
Author(s):  
R. T. Shroff ◽  
M. M. Javle ◽  
X. Dong ◽  
V. S. Kumar ◽  
S. Krishnan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis

4500 Background: The IGFR pathway is activated in pancreatic cancer and may result in aggressive disease course. The study of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) involved in this pathway may provide prognostic information and predict response to IGFR directed agents. We investigated IGFR pathway SNPs in patients with LAPC. Methods: We evaluated 39 SNPs from 7 candidate genes in the IGFR pathway (IGF1R, IGF2R, IGF1, IGF2, IRS1, IRS2, IGFBP3) in 105 LAPC patients. DNA extraction from whole blood was performed using the Qiagen Flexigene DNA and Promega Maxwell 16 kits. Genotyping was performed using the Sequenom method. Overall survival was measured from date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier plot, log-rank test, and Cox regression were used to compare survival of patients according to genotype corrected for previously identified prognostic factors, including induction chemotherapy, CA 19–9, albumin, LDH, hemoglobin and Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Results: Median survival time (MST) was 15 months (95% CI 13.3–16.7). Induction chemotherapy, LDH, CA 19–9 level, hemoglobin, and KPS were not significantly associated with survival. Serum albumin and three SNPs of the IGF pathway (IGF1R IVS20–3431A>G, IRS1 G971R, and IGF2 *4352A>G) were significantly associated with prognosis ( Table ). Two of the three genotypes remained as significant predictors for survival in Cox regression analysis when adjusted for clinical factors. A significant combined genotype effect was observed wherein patients with all three deleterious alleles had significantly worse survival than those with only two or one (10 vs. 16.3 vs. 21.3 months, p< 0.0001). Conclusions: These data suggest that SNPs in the IGFR pathway genes may have prognostic value for LAPC patients. This information may identify population subgroups that could benefit from IGFR-targeted agents. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Updated results of the GEST study: Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) versus S-1 versus gemcitabine (GEM) in unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4035-4035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Fukutomi ◽  
Takuji Okusaka ◽  
Kazuya Sugimori ◽  
Hideki Ueno ◽  
Tatsuya Ioka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Locally Advanced Disease ◽  
Phase Iii Study

4035 Background: The GEST study (Ioka et al. ASCO 2011, Abstract 4007) demonstrated the non-inferiority of S-1 to GEM with respect to the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We now report the updated results of this study. Methods: The GEST study was a randomized, 3-arm, phase III study. Chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable advanced PC, an ECOG Performance status (PS) of 0-1, and adequate organ functions were randomly assigned to receive GEM (1000 mg/m2, iv, d1, 8 and 15, q4w), S-1 (80/100/120 mg/day based on BSA, po, d1-28, q6w), or GS (GEM 1000 mg/m2, iv, d1 and 8 plus S-1 60/80/100 mg/day based on BSA po, d1-14, q3w). The primary endpoint was OS, used to assess the non-inferiority of S-1 and the superiority of GS to GEM. Patient information was updated in July 2011. Results: At the time of this follow-up analysis, median follow-up was 29.8 months with 795 OS events, compared with 18.4 months with 710 OS events out of 832 patients at the previous analysis. Median OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 8.0–9.7) in the GEM group and 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.6-10.8) in the S-1 group (HR=0.96, 97.5% CI: 0.79-1.17, p<0.001 for non-inferiority), which is consistent with prior results (HR=0.96, 97.5% CI: 0.78-1.18, p<0.001). In the GS group, median OS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 9.0-11.2). The HR was 0.91 (97.5%CI: 0.75-1.11, p=0.28 for superiority versus the GEM group). On subgroup analysis, GS was associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward better OS compared with GEM among patients with locally advanced disease and those with a PS of 1. Median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.7–14.9) in the GEM group and 15.9 months (95% CI: 13.0-19.7) in the GS group (HR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.51-1.03) among patients with locally advanced disease, and 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.9–8.3) in the GEM group and 9.6 months (95% CI: 8.0-10.9) in the GS group (HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.46-0.83) among patients with a PS of 1. Conclusions: The non-inferiority of S-1 to Gem in terms of the primary endpoint of OS was reconfirmed. Monotherapy with S-1 can be used as one of the standard treatments for advanced PC. As for GS therapy, there is room for further investigation.

Second-Line Oxaliplatin, Folinic Acid, and Fluorouracil Versus Folinic Acid and Fluorouracil Alone for Gemcitabine-Refractory Pancreatic Cancer: Outcomes From the CONKO-003 Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (23) ◽  
pp. 2423-2429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Oettle ◽  
Hanno Riess ◽  
Jens M. Stieler ◽  
Gerhard Heil ◽  
Ingo Schwaner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Gemcitabine Refractory

Purpose To assess the efficacy of a second-line regimen of oxaliplatin and folinic acid–modulated fluorouracil in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who have experienced progression while receiving gemcitabine monotherapy. Patients and Methods A randomized, open-label, phase III study was conducted in 16 institutions throughout Germany. Recruitment ran from January 2004 until May 2007, and the last follow-up concluded in December 2012. Overall, 168 patients age 18 years or older who experienced disease progression during first-line gemcitabine therapy were randomly assigned to folinic acid and fluorouracil (FF) or oxaliplatin and FF (OFF). Patients were stratified according to the presence of metastases, duration of first-line therapy, and Karnofsky performance status. Results Median follow-up was 54.1 months, and 160 patients were eligible for the primary analysis. The median overall survival in the OFF group (5.9 months; 95% CI, 4.1 to 7.4) versus the FF group (3.3 months; 95% CI, 2.7 to 4.0) was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; log-rank P = .010). Time to progression with OFF (2.9 months; 95% CI, 2.4 to 3.2) versus FF (2.0 months; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) was significantly extended also (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.94; log-rank P = .019). Rates of adverse events were similar between treatment arms, with the exception of grades 1 to 2 neurotoxicity, which were reported in 29 patients (38.2%) and six patients (7.1%) in the OFF and FF groups, respectively (P < .001). Conclusion Second-line OFF significantly extended the duration of overall survival when compared with FF alone in patients with advanced gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

Phase III Randomized Comparison of Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (33) ◽  
pp. 5513-5518 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cunningham ◽  
Ian Chau ◽  
Deborah D. Stocken ◽  
Juan W. Valle ◽  
David Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label

PurposeBoth gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP).Patients and MethodsPatients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status ≤ 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted.ResultsBetween May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity.ConclusionOn the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

A phase III trial of virulizin plus gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: Results of subgroup analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4116-4116 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Wright ◽  
J. Osterlee ◽  
S. Fekete ◽  
Y. Lee ◽  
A. H. Young
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

4116 Background: Virulizin (V) is a novel antitumor immune modulator that improves survival in pancreatic cancer patients (pts) as monotherapy. A double-blind, multicenter, randomized, phase III study was conducted to evaluate the survival benefits and safety of V in combination with gemcitabine (G) in pts with advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: Chemo-naive pts with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer with ECOG Performance Status (PS) of 0, 1 or 2 were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive intramuscular injections of either V or placebo (P) 3 times weekly + G (1,000 mg/m2 weekly ×7 with 1 week rest, then weekly ×3 q4w). Randomization was stratified according to ECOG PS (0 or 1, and 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced and metastatic). Pts who showed no clinical benefit or were intolerant to G entered 2nd-line therapy (stage 3), in which pts continued to receive either V or P alone or with 5-FU, or best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival, defined as time from baseline/treatment day 1 to time of death from any cause. Results: The intent to treat (ITT) population comprised 434 pts, of which 377 were efficacy evaluable (EE). Median overall survival for V + G was 6.3 months for the ITT population (6.8 months for EE pts) and 6 months for P + G for both ITT and EE pts. While differences in survival times were not statistically significant, exploratory analysis showed encouraging results in specific subgroups treated with V + G ( table ). Importantly, a significant difference was found in stage 3 pts who received V in a salvage setting compared to pts who received P. Conclusions: Pancreatic cancer pts with either low ECOG PS or metastatic cancer showed a survival benefit when treated with V + G, which was significant in pts who continued to receive V as a salvage therapy. Further studies in these targeted patient populations are being considered. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Single-Agent Gemcitabine As First-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: The GIP-1 Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1645-1651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Colucci ◽  
Roberto Labianca ◽  
Francesco Di Costanzo ◽  
Vittorio Gebbia ◽  
Giacomo Cartenì ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
First Line Treatment

PurposeSingle-agent gemcitabine became standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after demonstration of superiority compared with fluorouracil. The Gruppo Italiano Pancreas 1 randomized phase III trial aimed to compare gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00813696).Patients and MethodsPatients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 50, were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (arm A) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B). Arm A: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2weekly for 7 weeks, and, after a 1-week rest, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Arm B: cisplatin 25 mg/m2added weekly to gemcitabine, except cycle 1 day 22. Primary end point was overall survival. To have 8% power of detecting a 0.74 hazard ratio (HR) of death, with bilateral α .05, 355 events were needed and 400 patients planned.ResultsFour hundred patients were enrolled (arm A: 199; arm B: 201). Median age was 63, 59% were male, 84% had stage IV, and 83% had KPS ≥ 80. Median overall survival was 8.3 months versus 7.2 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.35; P = .38). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months versus 3.8 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.19; P = .80). The objective response rate was 10.1% in A and 12.9% in B (P = .37). Clinical benefit was experienced by 23.0% in A and 15.1% in B (P = .057). Combination therapy produced more hematologic toxicity, without relevant differences in nonhematologic toxicity.ConclusionThe addition of weekly cisplatin to gemcitabine failed to demonstrate any improvement as first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (24) ◽  
pp. 3946-3952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Detlef Quietzsch ◽  
Frank Gieseler ◽  
Michael Gonnermann ◽  
Herbert Schönekäs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle (GemCis arm) or gemcitabine alone at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week regimen (Gem arm). The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. Results One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and showed baseline characteristics well balanced between treatment arms. Combination treatment in the GemCis arm was associated with a prolonged median progression-free survival (5.3 months v 3.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; P = .053). Also, median overall survival was superior for patients treated in the GemCis arm as compared with the Gem arm (7.5 v 6.0 months), an advantage which did not, however, reach statistical significance (HR = 0.80; P = .15). Tumor response rates were comparable between treatment arms (10.2% v 8.2%). The rate of stable disease was, however, greater in the combination arm (60.2% v 40.2%; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity did not exceed 15% in both treatment arms. Conclusion These results support the efficacy and safety of an every-2-weeks treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were more favorable in the combination arm as compared with gemcitabine alone, although the difference did not attain statistical significance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document