Home > Journals > Medicine > Bulletin du cancer > summary
 
      Advanced search    Shopping cart    French version 
 
Latest books
Catalogue/Search
Collections
All journals
Medicine
Bulletin du Cancer
- Current issue
- Archives
- Subscribe
- Order an issue
- More information
Biology and research
Public health
Agronomy and biotech.
My account
Forgotten password?
Online account   activation
Subscribe
Licences IP
- Instructions for use
- Estimate request form
- Licence agreement
Order an issue
Pay-per-view articles
Newsletters
How can I publish?
Journals
Books
Help for advertisers
Foreign rights
Book sales agents



 

Texte intégral de l'article
 
Printable version

First-line simplified GEMOX (S-GemOx) versus classical GEMOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPA): results of a GERCOR randomized phase II study


Bulletin du Cancer. Volume 96, Number 5, 10018-22, mai 2009, Electronic journal of oncology

Free Article  

Author(s) : P Afchain, B Chibaudel, G Lledo, F Selle, L Bengrine-Lefevre, S Nguyen, J-F Paitel, L Mineur, P Artru, T André, C Louvet

Summary : 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.

Keywords : pancreatic cancer, metastatic disease, chemotherapy

 

About us - Contact us - Conditions of use - Secure payment
Latest news - Conferences
Copyright © 2007 John Libbey Eurotext - All rights reserved
[ Legal information - Powered by Dolomède ]