| 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. |
- 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. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 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.
|
|
