4.5 Article

Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine Plus Radiotherapy Versus Gemcitabine, 5-Fluorouracil, and Cisplatin Followed by Radiotherapy and 5-Fluorouracil for Patients With Locally Advanced, Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 101, 期 7, 页码 587-592

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jso.21527

关键词

radiotherapy; gemcitabine; pancreatic cancer

资金

  1. Public Health Service [CA23318, CA66636, CA21115, CA27525, CA07190, CA21076, CA49957, CA17145]
  2. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health
  3. Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: A randomized phase II trial (E1200) was designed to assess toxicities and surgical resection rates in two neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiation regimens in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The trial was terminated early due to poor accrual. Patients and Methods: Patients with borderline resectable adenocarcinomas of the pancreas were enrolled. Arm A patients (n = 10) received gemcitabine 500 mg/m(2) IV weekly for 6 weeks, with radiation to 50.4 Gy followed by surgical resection. Arm B patients (n = 11) received preoperative gemcitabine 175 mg/m(2) on days 1, 5, 29, and 33, cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and 29-32, 5-FU 600 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and 29-32, followed by radiation with continuous infusion 5-FU 225 mg/m(2) for 6 weeks. All patients received adjuvant gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly x 3 for five cycles. Results: Three patients in arm A. and two patients in arm B were resected. Hematologic toxicity was comparable between the two arms except more patients in arm B developed grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia than those in arm A. Arm B had fewer grade 1-2 GI toxicities although more patients (45%) experienced grade 3-4 GI toxicity. Conclusions: This phase II trial showed that both regimens were tolerable, and resectability and survival were comparable to previous studies. J. Surg. Oncol. 2010;101:587-592. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据