| 1. |
- Jones, Robert P., et al.
(författare)
-
Patterns of Recurrence After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma : A Secondary Analysis of the ESPAC-4 Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA Surgery. - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2168-6254 .- 2168-6262. ; 154:11, s. 1038-1048
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: The patterns of disease recurrence after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with adjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear.Objective: To define patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy and the association with survival.Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospectively collected data from the phase 3 European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 4 adjuvant clinical trial, an international multicenter study. The study included 730 patients who had resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Data were analyzed between July 2017 and May 2019.Interventions: Randomization to adjuvant gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus capecitabine.Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival, recurrence, and sites of recurrence.Results: Of the 730 patients, median age was 65 years (range 37-81 years), 414 were men (57%), and 316 were women (43%). The median follow-up time from randomization was 43.2 months (95% CI, 39.7-45.5 months), with overall survival from time of surgery of 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.8-29.9 months) with gemcitabine and 30.2 months (95% CI, 25.8-33.5 months) with the combination (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P=.03). The 5-year survival estimates were 17.1% (95% CI, 11.6%-23.5%) and 28.0% (22.0%-34.3%), respectively. Recurrence occurred in 479 patients (65.6%); another 78 patients (10.7%) died without recurrence. Local recurrence occurred at a median of 11.63 months (95% CI, 10.05-12.19 months), significantly different from those with distant recurrence with a median of 9.49 months (95% CI, 8.44-10.71 months) (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; P=.04). Following recurrence, the median survival was 9.36 months (95% CI, 8.08-10.48 months) for local recurrence and 8.94 months (95% CI, 7.82-11.17 months) with distant recurrence (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P=.27). The median overall survival of patients with distant-only recurrence (23.03 months; 95% CI, 19.55-25.85 months) or local with distant recurrence (23.82 months; 95% CI, 17.48-28.32 months) was not significantly different from those with only local recurrence (24.83 months; 95% CI, 22.96-27.63 months) (P=.85 and P=.35, respectively). Gemcitabine plus capecitabine had a 21% reduction of death following recurrence compared with monotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P=.03).Conclusions and Relevance: There were no significant differences between the time to recurrence and subsequent and overall survival between local and distant recurrence. Pancreatic cancer behaves as a systemic disease requiring effective systemic therapy after resection.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00058201, EudraCT 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN 96397434. This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigates patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer and the association with survival.
|
|
| 2. |
- Neoptolemos, John P., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4) : a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 389:10073, s. 1011-1024
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer.Methods: We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1: 1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m(2) oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434.Findings: Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28.0 months (95% CI 23.5-31.5) compared with 25.5 months (22.7-27.9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI 0.68-0.98], p=0.032). 608 grade 3-4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3-4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group.Interpretation: The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kageyama, Masa, et al.
(författare)
-
A multi-model CMIP6-PMIP4 study of Arctic sea ice at 127 ka : sea ice data compilation and model differences
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Climate of the Past. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1814-9324 .- 1814-9332. ; 17:1, s. 37-62
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Last Interglacial period (LIG) is a period with increased summer insolation at high northern latitudes, which results in strong changes in the terrestrial and marine cryosphere. Understanding the mechanisms for this response via climate modelling and comparing the models' representation of climate reconstructions is one of the objectives set up by the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project for its contribution to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Here we analyse the results from 16 climate models in terms of Arctic sea ice. The multi-model mean reduction in minimum sea ice area from the pre industrial period (PI) to the LIG reaches 50 % (multi-model mean LIG area is 3.20×106 km2, compared to 6.46×106 km2 for the PI). On the other hand, there is little change for the maximum sea ice area (which is 15–16×106 km2 for both the PI and the LIG. To evaluate the model results we synthesise LIG sea ice data from marine cores collected in the Arctic Ocean, Nordic Seas and northern North Atlantic. The reconstructions for the northern North Atlantic show year-round ice-free conditions, and most models yield results in agreement with these reconstructions. Model–data disagreement appear for the sites in the Nordic Seas close to Greenland and at the edge of the Arctic Ocean. The northernmost site with good chronology, for which a sea ice concentration larger than 75 % is reconstructed even in summer, discriminates those models which simulate too little sea ice. However, the remaining models appear to simulate too much sea ice over the two sites south of the northernmost one, for which the reconstructed sea ice cover is seasonal. Hence models either underestimate or overestimate sea ice cover for the LIG, and their bias does not appear to be related to their bias for the pre-industrial period. Drivers for the inter-model differences are different phasing of the up and down short-wave anomalies over the Arctic Ocean, which are associated with differences in model albedo; possible cloud property differences, in terms of optical depth; and LIG ocean circulation changes which occur for some, but not all, LIG simulations. Finally, we note that inter-comparisons between the LIG simulations and simulations for future climate with moderate (1 % yr−1) CO2 increase show a relationship between LIG sea ice and sea ice simulated under CO2 increase around the years of doubling CO2. The LIG may therefore yield insight into likely 21st century Arctic sea ice changes using these LIG simulations.
|
|
