PURPOSE: GemOx was defined as a D1-D2 schedule, based on preclinical data. In order to improve convenience for patients, we evaluated a simplified D1-D1 GemOx regimen (S-GemOx) in MPA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (pts) with MPA were 2:1 randomly assigned for first-line treatment to S-GemOx (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), 100-minute infusion D1 immediately followed by oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2), 120-minute infusion) or to GemOx (Gem D1 and ox D2). Treatment was repeated in each arm every 2 weeks until disease progression. Stratification was performed on center and PS. RESULTS:Fifty-seven pts were enrolled, S-GemOx = 37 (PS 2: 22%), GemOx = 20 (PS 2: 20%). Populations were well balanced for age (64.9 vs 66.6 years); gender (57 vs 65% male), location of primary tumor (pancreas head: 49 vs 50%), and metastatic sites (liver 76 vs 85%; peritoneum 24 vs 20%; lung 16 vs 10%; lymph nodes 14 vs 15%; other 5 vs 5%). Tumor differentiation significantly differed between the 2 groups (S-GemOx: 8% poorly differentiated vs GemOx: 36%). Response rate was 27% (95% CI: 12-42) in arm S-GemOx and 10% (95% CI: 0-23) in GemOx. Median PFS was 4.0 and 2.5 months in S-GemOx and GemOx, respectively. Median OS was 7.6 and 3.2 months in S-GemOx and GemOx, respectively. Since more cycles were administered in S-GemOx (8.5 [1-29] vs 5.8 [2-12]), grade 3 oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy was higher in S-GemOx [21.6 vs 0%]). CONCLUSIONS:Activity and tolerance of S-GemOx are in the same range as compared to our previous experiences of classical GemOx in metastatic pancreatic cancer. The very bad outcome of patients randomized in GemOx arm could at least be in part explained by the high-rate of poorly differentiated tumors.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:GemOx was defined as a D1-D2 schedule, based on preclinical data. In order to improve convenience for patients, we evaluated a simplified D1-D1 GemOx regimen (S-GemOx) in MPA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (pts) with MPA were 2:1 randomly assigned for first-line treatment to S-GemOx (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), 100-minute infusion D1 immediately followed by oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2), 120-minute infusion) or to GemOx (Gem D1 and ox D2). Treatment was repeated in each arm every 2 weeks until disease progression. Stratification was performed on center and PS. RESULTS: Fifty-seven pts were enrolled, S-GemOx = 37 (PS 2: 22%), GemOx = 20 (PS 2: 20%). Populations were well balanced for age (64.9 vs 66.6 years); gender (57 vs 65% male), location of primary tumor (pancreas head: 49 vs 50%), and metastatic sites (liver 76 vs 85%; peritoneum 24 vs 20%; lung 16 vs 10%; lymph nodes 14 vs 15%; other 5 vs 5%). Tumor differentiation significantly differed between the 2 groups (S-GemOx: 8% poorly differentiated vs GemOx: 36%). Response rate was 27% (95% CI: 12-42) in arm S-GemOx and 10% (95% CI: 0-23) in GemOx. Median PFS was 4.0 and 2.5 months in S-GemOx and GemOx, respectively. Median OS was 7.6 and 3.2 months in S-GemOx and GemOx, respectively. Since more cycles were administered in S-GemOx (8.5 [1-29] vs 5.8 [2-12]), grade 3 oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy was higher in S-GemOx [21.6 vs 0%]). CONCLUSIONS: Activity and tolerance of S-GemOx are in the same range as compared to our previous experiences of classical GemOx in metastatic pancreatic cancer. The very bad outcome of patients randomized in GemOx arm could at least be in part explained by the high-rate of poorly differentiated tumors.
Authors: Jean-Philippe Spano; Y Vano; S Vignot; T De La Motte Rouge; L Hassani; R Mouawad; F Menegaux; D Khayat; L Leenhardt Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Cynthia L Renn; Valentina A Carozzi; Peter Rhee; Danisha Gallop; Susan G Dorsey; Guido Cavaletti Journal: Mol Pain Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 3.395
Authors: Yehuda Z Patt; Waheed Murad; Mohammed H Fekrazad; Ari D Baron; Pranshu Bansal; Yanis Boumber; Kim Steinberg; Sang-Joon Lee; Ed Bedrick; Ruofei Du; Fa Chyi Lee Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 4.452