| 1. |
- Bernhard, Jürg, et al.
(författare)
-
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
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 26:22, s. 3695-3701
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) 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 >or= 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Herrmann, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
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
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 25:16, s. 2212-2217
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: This 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 Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 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, Kamofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. Results: A 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. Conclusion: GemCap 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rudenstam, Carl-Magnus, 1930, et al.
(författare)
-
Randomized trial comparing axillary clearance versus no axillary clearance in older patients with breast cancer: first results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 10-93.
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 1527-7755. ; 24:3, s. 337-44
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Axillary clearance in early breast cancer aims to improve locoregional control and provide staging information but is associated with undesirable morbidity. We therefore investigated whether avoiding axillary surgery in older women would result in improved quality of life (QL) with similar disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 2002, women > or = 60 years old with clinically node-negative operable breast cancer in whom adjuvant tamoxifen was considered indicated regardless of pathologic nodal status were randomly assigned to primary surgery plus axillary clearance (Sx + Ax) followed by tamoxifen (Tam) versus Sx without Ax followed by Tam for 5 consecutive years. The primary end point was QL reported by the patient and by physician assessment. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients (234 to Sx + Ax, 239 to Sx) were randomly assigned. The median age was 74 years; 80% had estrogen receptor-positive disease. In both the patients' subjective assessment of their QL and the physicians' perception of the patients' QL, the largest adverse QL effects of Ax were observed from baseline to the first postoperative assessment, but the differences tended to disappear in 6 to 12 months. At a median follow-up of 6.6 years, results for Sx + Ax and Sx yielded similar DFS (6-year DFS, 67% v 66%; hazard ratio [HR] Sx + Ax/Sx, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.42; P = .69) and OS (6-year OS, 75% v 73%; HR Sx + Ax/Sx, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.46; P = .77). CONCLUSION: Avoiding axillary clearance for women > or = 60 years old who have clinically node-negative disease and receive Tam for endocrine-responsive disease yields similar efficacy with better early QL.
|
|
