| 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. |
- Bonnetain, Franck, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer : Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 50:17, s. 2983-2993
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. Methods: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). Results: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. Conclusion: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gerber, Sophie, et al.
(författare)
-
High Rates of Gene Flow by Pollen and Seed in Oak Populations across Europe
- 2014
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 9:1, s. e85130-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Gene flow is a key factor in the evolution of species, influencing effective population size, hybridisation and local adaptation. We analysed local gene flow in eight stands of white oak (mostly Quercus petraea and Q. robur, but also Q. pubescens and Q. faginea) distributed across Europe. Adult trees within a given area in each stand were exhaustively sampled (range [239, 754], mean 423), mapped, and acorns were collected ([17,147], 51) from several mother trees ([3,47], 23). Seedlings ([65,387], 178) were harvested and geo-referenced in six of the eight stands. Genetic information was obtained from screening distinct molecular markers spread across the genome, genotyping each tree, acorn or seedling. All samples were thus genotyped at 5-8 nuclear microsatellite loci. Fathers/parents were assigned to acorns and seedlings using likelihood methods. Mating success of male and female parents, pollen and seed dispersal curves, and also hybridisation rates were estimated in each stand and compared on a continental scale. On average, the percentage of the wind-borne pollen from outside the stand was 60%, with large variation among stands (21-88%). Mean seed immigration into the stand was 40%, a high value for oaks that are generally considered to have limited seed dispersal. However, this estimate varied greatly among stands (20-66%). Gene flow was mostly intraspecific, with large variation, as some trees and stands showed particularly high rates of hybridisation. Our results show that mating success was unevenly distributed among trees. The high levels of gene flow suggest that geographically remote oak stands are unlikely to be genetically isolated, questioning the static definition of gene reserves and seed stands.
|
|
