PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical benefit and nursing considerations of the new anticancer agent gemcitabine hydrochloride in the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications, books. DATA SYNTHESIS: Unsatisfactory tools for assessment of pancreatic cancer have led to the development of a novel end point, "clinical benefit," to assess improvements in disease-related symptoms and performance status. The first clinical studies to use this end point assessed gemcitabine, Results showed that 24% of patients on gemcitabine were clinical benefit responders compared to 5% of patients on 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In patients refractory to 5-FU, 27% showed a clinical benefit response to gemcitabine. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine provides significantly better clinical benefit than standard treatment for pancreatic cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Clinical benefit assessments rely on oncology nurses to classify the response to treatment in addition to managing the side effects.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical benefit and nursing considerations of the new anticancer agent gemcitabine hydrochloride in the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications, books. DATA SYNTHESIS: Unsatisfactory tools for assessment of pancreatic cancer have led to the development of a novel end point, "clinical benefit," to assess improvements in disease-related symptoms and performance status. The first clinical studies to use this end point assessed gemcitabine, Results showed that 24% of patients on gemcitabine were clinical benefit responders compared to 5% of patients on 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In patients refractory to 5-FU, 27% showed a clinical benefit response to gemcitabine. CONCLUSIONS:Gemcitabine provides significantly better clinical benefit than standard treatment for pancreatic cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Clinical benefit assessments rely on oncology nurses to classify the response to treatment in addition to managing the side effects.
Authors: G P Stathopoulos; K Syrigos; G Aravantinos; A Polyzos; P Papakotoulas; G Fountzilas; A Potamianou; N Ziras; J Boukovinas; J Varthalitis; N Androulakis; A Kotsakis; G Samonis; V Georgoulias Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-08-08 Impact factor: 7.640