SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Köhne Claus Henning) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Köhne Claus Henning)

  • Resultat 1-5 av 5
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
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.
  • Goey, Kaitlyn K. H., et al. (författare)
  • Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer : A systematic review
  • 2018
  • Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 96, s. 115-124
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 – June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.Results: Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5–18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%–100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%–25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1–9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4–11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.Conclusions: We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.
  •  
3.
  • 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.
  •  
4.
  • Nordlinger, Bernard, et al. (författare)
  • Does chemotherapy prior to liver resection increase the potential for cure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? : A report from the European Colorectal Metastases Treatment Group
  • 2007
  • Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 43:14, s. 2037-2045
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Liver resection offers the only chance of cure for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Typically, the 5-year survival rates following liver resection range from 25% to 40%. Unfortunately, approximately 85% of patients with stage IV CRC have liver disease which is considered unresectable at presentation. However, the rapid expansion in the use of improved combination therapy regimens has increased the percentage of patients eligible for potentially curative surgery. Despite this, the selection criteria for patients potentially suitable for resection are not well documented and patient management by multidisciplinary teams, although essential, is still evolving. The goal of the European Colorectal Metastases Treatment Group is to establish pan-European guidelines for the treatment of patients with CRC liver metastases that can be adopted more widely by established treatment centres and to develop more accurate staging systems and evaluation criteria.
  •  
5.
  • Punt, Cornelis J A, et al. (författare)
  • Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials : a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials.
  • 2007
  • Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 99:13, s. 998-1003
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Disease-free survival is increasingly being used as the primary endpoint of most trials testing adjuvant treatments in cancer. Other frequently used endpoints include overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and time to recurrence. These endpoints are often defined differently in different trials in the same type of cancer, leading to a lack of comparability among trials. In this Commentary, we used adjuvant studies in colon cancer as a model to address this issue. In a systematic review of the literature, we identified 52 studies of adjuvant treatment in colon cancer published in 1997–2006 that used eight other endpoints in addition to overall survival. Both the definition of these endpoints and the starting point for measuring time to the events that constituted these endpoints varied widely. A panel of experts on clinical research on colorectal cancer then reached consensus on the definition of each endpoint. Disease-free survival—defined as the time from randomization to any event, irrespective of cause—was considered to be the most informative endpoint for assessing the effect of treatment and therefore the most relevant to clinical practice. The proposed guidelines may add to the quality and cross-comparability of future studies of adjuvant treatments for cancer.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-5 av 5

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy