Gemcitabine combined with capecitabine compared to gemcitabine with or without erlotinib as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

Jae Yun Lim, Jang Ho Cho, Se Joon Lee, Dong Ki Lee, Dong Sup Yoon, Jae Yong Cho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to retrospectively compare the efficacy and tolerability between three regimens for first-line chemotherapy-gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM-X), gemcitabine plus erlotinib (GEM-T), and gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM)-in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods There was a total of 127 patients who underwent chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer between January 2007 and November 2011 at our institution. Patients were treated with either GEM (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks), GEM-T (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and erlotinib 100 mg daily), or GEM-X (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and capecitabine 850 mg/m2twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 1 week's rest) as the first-line treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity were evaluated. Results The patient population was divided into groups depending on their first-line treatment: GEM (n=47), GEM-T (n=44), and GEM-X (n=36). GEM-X significantly improved ORR (21.2% vs. 12.7% and 15.9%), PFS (8.9 vs. 5.2 and 3.9 months; p < 0.001), and OS (12.1 vs. 10.4 and 9.9 months; p = 0.03) compared to GEM and GEM-T, respectively. There were higher incidences of some non-hematologic adverse events with GEM-X and GEM-T compared to GEM, but most were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion GEM-X presented better clinical efficacy and acceptable tolerability than GEM-T and GEM in advanced pancreatic cancers. It is worthy to further investigate which agent has a clinical advantage as a combination drug with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer and to explore the predictive markers leading to personalize anti-cancer treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)266-273
Number of pages8
JournalCancer Research and Treatment
Volume47
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Jan 1

Fingerprint

gemcitabine
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Drug Therapy
Capecitabine
Erlotinib Hydrochloride

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

@article{8b6024abbc484085bb28ef3cfd26f147,
title = "Gemcitabine combined with capecitabine compared to gemcitabine with or without erlotinib as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer",
abstract = "Purpose The purpose of this study is to retrospectively compare the efficacy and tolerability between three regimens for first-line chemotherapy-gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM-X), gemcitabine plus erlotinib (GEM-T), and gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM)-in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods There was a total of 127 patients who underwent chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer between January 2007 and November 2011 at our institution. Patients were treated with either GEM (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks), GEM-T (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and erlotinib 100 mg daily), or GEM-X (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and capecitabine 850 mg/m2twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 1 week's rest) as the first-line treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity were evaluated. Results The patient population was divided into groups depending on their first-line treatment: GEM (n=47), GEM-T (n=44), and GEM-X (n=36). GEM-X significantly improved ORR (21.2{\%} vs. 12.7{\%} and 15.9{\%}), PFS (8.9 vs. 5.2 and 3.9 months; p < 0.001), and OS (12.1 vs. 10.4 and 9.9 months; p = 0.03) compared to GEM and GEM-T, respectively. There were higher incidences of some non-hematologic adverse events with GEM-X and GEM-T compared to GEM, but most were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion GEM-X presented better clinical efficacy and acceptable tolerability than GEM-T and GEM in advanced pancreatic cancers. It is worthy to further investigate which agent has a clinical advantage as a combination drug with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer and to explore the predictive markers leading to personalize anti-cancer treatment.",
author = "Lim, {Jae Yun} and Cho, {Jang Ho} and Lee, {Se Joon} and Lee, {Dong Ki} and Yoon, {Dong Sup} and Cho, {Jae Yong}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4143/crt.2013.158",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "266--273",
journal = "Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "1598-2998",
publisher = "Korean Cancer Association",
number = "2",

}

Gemcitabine combined with capecitabine compared to gemcitabine with or without erlotinib as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. / Lim, Jae Yun; Cho, Jang Ho; Lee, Se Joon; Lee, Dong Ki; Yoon, Dong Sup; Cho, Jae Yong.

In: Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 47, No. 2, 01.01.2015, p. 266-273.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gemcitabine combined with capecitabine compared to gemcitabine with or without erlotinib as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

AU - Lim, Jae Yun

AU - Cho, Jang Ho

AU - Lee, Se Joon

AU - Lee, Dong Ki

AU - Yoon, Dong Sup

AU - Cho, Jae Yong

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Purpose The purpose of this study is to retrospectively compare the efficacy and tolerability between three regimens for first-line chemotherapy-gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM-X), gemcitabine plus erlotinib (GEM-T), and gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM)-in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods There was a total of 127 patients who underwent chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer between January 2007 and November 2011 at our institution. Patients were treated with either GEM (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks), GEM-T (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and erlotinib 100 mg daily), or GEM-X (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and capecitabine 850 mg/m2twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 1 week's rest) as the first-line treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity were evaluated. Results The patient population was divided into groups depending on their first-line treatment: GEM (n=47), GEM-T (n=44), and GEM-X (n=36). GEM-X significantly improved ORR (21.2% vs. 12.7% and 15.9%), PFS (8.9 vs. 5.2 and 3.9 months; p < 0.001), and OS (12.1 vs. 10.4 and 9.9 months; p = 0.03) compared to GEM and GEM-T, respectively. There were higher incidences of some non-hematologic adverse events with GEM-X and GEM-T compared to GEM, but most were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion GEM-X presented better clinical efficacy and acceptable tolerability than GEM-T and GEM in advanced pancreatic cancers. It is worthy to further investigate which agent has a clinical advantage as a combination drug with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer and to explore the predictive markers leading to personalize anti-cancer treatment.

AB - Purpose The purpose of this study is to retrospectively compare the efficacy and tolerability between three regimens for first-line chemotherapy-gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM-X), gemcitabine plus erlotinib (GEM-T), and gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM)-in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Materials and Methods There was a total of 127 patients who underwent chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer between January 2007 and November 2011 at our institution. Patients were treated with either GEM (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks), GEM-T (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and erlotinib 100 mg daily), or GEM-X (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and capecitabine 850 mg/m2twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 1 week's rest) as the first-line treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity were evaluated. Results The patient population was divided into groups depending on their first-line treatment: GEM (n=47), GEM-T (n=44), and GEM-X (n=36). GEM-X significantly improved ORR (21.2% vs. 12.7% and 15.9%), PFS (8.9 vs. 5.2 and 3.9 months; p < 0.001), and OS (12.1 vs. 10.4 and 9.9 months; p = 0.03) compared to GEM and GEM-T, respectively. There were higher incidences of some non-hematologic adverse events with GEM-X and GEM-T compared to GEM, but most were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion GEM-X presented better clinical efficacy and acceptable tolerability than GEM-T and GEM in advanced pancreatic cancers. It is worthy to further investigate which agent has a clinical advantage as a combination drug with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer and to explore the predictive markers leading to personalize anti-cancer treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928550972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928550972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4143/crt.2013.158

DO - 10.4143/crt.2013.158

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84928550972

VL - 47

SP - 266

EP - 273

JO - Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 1598-2998

IS - 2

ER -