Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and S-1 combination versus gemcitabine alone in the treatment of unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer (Japan Clinical Cancer Research Organization PC-01 study)

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of gemcitabine (GEM) and S-1 (GS) in comparison to GEM alone (G) for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods In this multicenter randomized phase II study, we randomly assigned unresectable pancreatic cancer patients to either the GS gro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology 2012-05, Vol.69 (5), p.1197-1204
Hauptverfasser: Ozaka, Masato, Matsumura, Yuji, Ishii, Hiroshi, Omuro, Yasushi, Itoi, Takao, Mouri, Hisatsugu, Hanada, Keiji, Kimura, Yasutoshi, Maetani, Iruru, Okabe, Yoshinobu, Tani, Masaji, Ikeda, Takaaki, Hijioka, Susumu, Watanabe, Ryouhei, Ohoka, Shinya, Hirose, Yuki, Suyama, Masafumi, Egawa, Naoto, Sofuni, Atsushi, Ikari, Takaaki, Nakajima, Toshifusa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of gemcitabine (GEM) and S-1 (GS) in comparison to GEM alone (G) for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods In this multicenter randomized phase II study, we randomly assigned unresectable pancreatic cancer patients to either the GS group or the G group. The GS group regimen consists of intravenous 1,000 mg/m 2 GEM during 30 min on days 1 and 8, combined with 80 mg/m 2 oral S-1 twice daily on days 1–14, repeated every 3 weeks. On the other hand, the G group regimen consists of intravenous 1,000 mg/m 2 GEM on days 1, 8, and 15, repeated every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included treatment toxicity, clinical response benefit, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival. Results We registered 117 patients from 16 institutions between June 2007 and August, 2010. The ORR of the GS group was 28.3%, whereas that of the G group was 6.8%. This difference was statistically significant ( P  = 0.005). The disease control rate was 64.2% in the GS group and 44.1% in the G group. Median PFS was 6.15 months in the GS group and 3.78 month in the G group. This was also statistically significant ( P  = 0.0007). Moreover, the median overall survival (OS) of the GS group was significantly longer than that of the G group (13.7 months vs. 8.0 months; P  = 0.035). The major grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (54.7% in the GS group and 22.0% in the G group), thrombocytopenia (15.1% in the GS group and 5.1% in the G group), and skin rash (9.4% in the GS group). Conclusions The GS group showed stronger anticancer activity than the G group, suggesting the need for a large randomized phase III study to confirm GS advantages in a specific subset.
ISSN:0344-5704
1432-0843
DOI:10.1007/s00280-012-1822-1