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
University of Liverpool1, Royal Liverpool University Hospital2, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust3, University of Manchester4, Manchester Royal Infirmary5, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust6, Weston Park Hospital7, Royal Free Hospital8, St James's University Hospital9, Karolinska Institutet10, Uppsala University11, University of Hamburg12, Royal Surrey County Hospital13, Guy's Hospital14, Hammersmith Hospital15, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre16, Cardiff University17, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham18, Churchill Hospital19, Derriford Hospital20, University Hospital Coventry21, Heidelberg University22
TL;DR: The adjuvant combination of gem citabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
About: This article is published in The Lancet.The article was published on 2017-03-11 and is currently open access. It has received 1378 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Gemcitabine & Capecitabine.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:
Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer.
METHODS:
We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety.
RESULTS:
At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis).
CONCLUSIONS:
Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by RD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).
1,668 citations
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, University of South Florida2, Vanderbilt University3, City of Hope National Medical Center4, Fox Chase Cancer Center5, University Of Tennessee System6, Brigham and Women's Hospital7, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance8, Case Western Reserve University9, Roswell Park Cancer Institute10, Northwestern University11, Harvard University12, University of Nebraska Medical Center13, University of Utah14, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center15
TL;DR: This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
1,545 citations
TL;DR: This review aims to outline the most up-to-date knowledge of pancreatic adenocarcinoma risk, diagnostics, treatment and outcomes, while identifying gaps that aim to stimulate further research in this understudied malignancy.
Abstract: This review aims to outline the most up-to-date knowledge of pancreatic adenocarcinoma risk, diagnostics, treatment and outcomes, while identifying gaps that aim to stimulate further research in this understudied malignancy. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal condition with a rising incidence, predicted to become the second leading cause of cancer death in some regions. It often presents at an advanced stage, which contributes to poor five-year survival rates of 2%-9%, ranking firmly last amongst all cancer sites in terms of prognostic outcomes for patients. Better understanding of the risk factors and symptoms associated with this disease is essential to inform both health professionals and the general population of potential preventive and/or early detection measures. The identification of high-risk patients who could benefit from screening to detect pre-malignant conditions such as pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms is urgently required, however an acceptable screening test has yet to be identified. The management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is evolving, with the introduction of new surgical techniques and medical therapies such as laparoscopic techniques and neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, however this has only led to modest improvements in outcomes. The identification of novel biomarkers is desirable to move towards a precision medicine era, where pancreatic cancer therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, while unnecessary treatments that have negative consequences on quality of life could be prevented for others. Research efforts must also focus on the development of new agents and delivery systems. Overall, considerable progress is required to reduce the burden associated with pancreatic cancer. Recent, renewed efforts to fund large consortia and research into pancreatic adenocarcinoma are welcomed, but further streams will be necessary to facilitate the momentum needed to bring breakthroughs seen for other cancer sites.
951 citations
University of California, San Francisco1, Moffitt Cancer Center2, University of Michigan3, Mayo Clinic4, Roswell Park Cancer Institute5, University of Tennessee Health Science Center6, Northwestern University7, Washington University in St. Louis8, Vanderbilt University9, Yale Cancer Center10, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance11, City of Hope National Medical Center12, Duke University13, Ohio State University14, Fox Chase Cancer Center15, Harvard University16, Case Western Reserve University17, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center18, Stanford University19, University of Wisconsin-Madison20, University of California, San Diego21, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network22, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center23, University of Alabama at Birmingham24, University of Utah25, University of Colorado Boulder26, Dana Corporation27
TL;DR: The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma focus on diagnosis and treatment with systemic therapy, radiation therapy, and surgical resection, as well as on management of locally advanced unresectable and metastatic disease.
Abstract: Ductal adenocarcinoma and its variants account for most pancreatic malignancies. High-quality multiphase imaging can help to preoperatively distinguish between patients eligible for resection with curative intent and those with unresectable disease. Systemic therapy is used in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant pancreatic cancer setting, as well as in the management of locally advanced unresectable and metastatic disease. Clinical trials are critical for making progress in treatment of pancreatic cancer. The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma focus on diagnosis and treatment with systemic therapy, radiation therapy, and surgical resection.
762 citations
TL;DR: The improvements in pancreatic cancer treatment obtained in the past few years are explored, key questions related to the future development of new therapies are discussed and where successes are likely to be achieved in the future are addressed.
Abstract: The overall 5-year survival for pancreatic cancer has changed little over the past few decades, and pancreatic cancer is predicted to be the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the next decade in Western countries. The past few years, however, have seen improvements in first-line and second-line palliative therapies and considerable progress in increasing survival with adjuvant treatment. The use of biomarkers to help define treatment and the potential of neoadjuvant therapies also offer opportunities to improve outcomes. This Review brings together information on achievements to date, what is working currently and where successes are likely to be achieved in the future. Furthermore, we address the questions of how we should approach the development of pancreatic cancer treatments, including those for patients with metastatic, locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, as well as for patients with resected tumours. In addition to embracing newer strategies comprising genomics, stromal therapies and immunotherapies, conventional approaches using chemotherapy and radiotherapy still offer considerable prospects for greater traction and synergy with evolving concepts.
667 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, a new estimate minimum information theoretical criterion estimate (MAICE) is introduced for the purpose of statistical identification, which is free from the ambiguities inherent in the application of conventional hypothesis testing procedure.
Abstract: The history of the development of statistical hypothesis testing in time series analysis is reviewed briefly and it is pointed out that the hypothesis testing procedure is not adequately defined as the procedure for statistical model identification. The classical maximum likelihood estimation procedure is reviewed and a new estimate minimum information theoretical criterion (AIC) estimate (MAICE) which is designed for the purpose of statistical identification is introduced. When there are several competing models the MAICE is defined by the model and the maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters which give the minimum of AIC defined by AIC = (-2)log-(maximum likelihood) + 2(number of independently adjusted parameters within the model). MAICE provides a versatile procedure for statistical model identification which is free from the ambiguities inherent in the application of conventional hypothesis testing procedure. The practical utility of MAICE in time series analysis is demonstrated with some numerical examples.
47,133 citations
TL;DR: The analysis of censored failure times is considered in this paper, where the hazard function is taken to be a function of the explanatory variables and unknown regression coefficients multiplied by an arbitrary and unknown function of time.
Abstract: The analysis of censored failure times is considered. It is assumed that on each individual arc available values of one or more explanatory variables. The hazard function (age-specific failure rate) is taken to be a function of the explanatory variables and unknown regression coefficients multiplied by an arbitrary and unknown function of time. A conditional likelihood is obtained, leading to inferences about the unknown regression coefficients. Some generalizations are outlined.
28,264 citations
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: Head and Neck Tumours.- Lip and Oral Cavity.- Pharynx.- Larynx.' Maxillary Sinus.- Salivary Glands.- Thyroid Gland.- Digestive System Tumour .
Abstract: Head and Neck Tumours.- Lip and Oral Cavity.- Pharynx.- Larynx.- Maxillary Sinus.- Salivary Glands.- Thyroid Gland.- Digestive System Tumours.- Oesophagus.- Stomach.- Colon and Rectum.- Anal Canal.- Liver.- Gall Bladder.- Extrahepatic Bile Ducts.- Ampulla of Vater.- Pancreas.- Lung Tumours.- Tumours of Bone and Soft Tissues.- Bone.- Soft Tissue.- Skin Tumours.- Carcinoma of Skin.- Melanoma of Skin.- Breast Tumours.- Gynaecological Tumours.- Cervix Uteri.- Corpus Uteri.- Ovary.- Vagina.- Vulva.- Urological Tumours.- Prostate.- Testis.- Penis.- Urinary Bladder.- Kidney.- Renal Pelvis and Ureter.- Urethra.- Ophthalmic Tumours.- Carcinoma of Eyelid.- Malignant Melanoma of Eyelid.- Carcinoma of Conjunctiva.- Malignant Melanoma of Conjunctiva.- Malignant Melanoma of Uvea.- Retinoblastoma.- Sarcoma of Orbit.- Carcinoma of Lacrimal Gland.- Brain Tumours.- Hodgkin's Disease.- Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.- Paediatric Tumours.- Nephroblastoma (Wilms' Tumour).- Neuroblastoma.- Soft Tissue Sarcomas - Paediatric.
15,624 citations
TL;DR: Efficient methods of analysis of randomized clinical trials in which the authors wish to compare the duration of survival among different groups of patients are described.
Abstract: Part I of this report appeared in the previous issue (Br. J. Cancer (1976) 34,585), and discussed the design of randomized clinical trials. Part II now describes efficient methods of analysis of randomized clinical trials in which we wish to compare the duration of survival (or the time until some other untoward event first occurs) among different groups of patients. It is intended to enable physicians without statistical training either to analyse such data themselves using life tables, the logrank test and retrospective stratification, or, when such analyses are presented, to appreciate them more critically, but the discussion may also be of interest to statisticians who have not yet specialized in clinical trial analyses.
8,334 citations