4.2 Article

Single-agent gemcitabine in the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancers: a phase II study

期刊

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 68-73

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyi021

关键词

gemcitabine; biliary tract cancer; cholangiocarcinoma

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Patients with advanced biliary tract cancers have a dismal prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine as a single agent in the treatment of patients with unresectable biliary tract cancers. Methods: From May 2002 to April 2004, 23 chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract adenocarcinomas were enrolled. The median age was 59 years (range 37-76). Fifteen patients (65.2%) had cholangiocarcinomas and eight (34.8%) had gallbladder adenocarcinomas. Patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) over 60 min once a week for 2 weeks followed by a week off therapy. Treatment was discontinued when unacceptable toxicities occurred or there was evidence of disease progression. Results: A total of 110 cycles of chemotherapy were performed with a median of four cycles (range 1-10). The median follow-up was 13.4 months. Among the 23 patients, six (26.1%) had a partial response, eight (34.8%) had stable disease and nine (39.1%) had disease progression despite treatment. The overall response rate was 26.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 22.08-30.12]. The median time to disease progression was 8.1 months (95% CI 3.33-12.87) and the median overall survival was 13.1 months (95% CI 1.64-24.56). Toxicities were generally mild and treatment was well tolerated. Of the 23 patients, one patient experienced a grade 3-4 neutropenia and one a grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia; however, no cases of febrile neutropenia or treatment-related deaths were noted. Conclusion: In this phase II trial, therapy with gemcitabine was well tolerated and clinically active in patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancers.

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

4.2
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