4.4 Article

Phase II study of gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic cancer

期刊

ANTI-CANCER DRUGS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 623-628

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00001813-200009000-00004

关键词

chemotherapy; cisplatin; gemcitabine; pancreas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present phase II trial was performed to assess the efficacy and toxicity of polychemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas. Sixteen patients received six courses of an i.v. cytotoxic regimen consisting of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), days 1, 8 and 15) and cisplatin (35 mg/m(2), days 1, 8 and 15) administered in 28-day intervals, Complete remission (CR) occurred in one patient (6%), partial remission (PR) in four patients (25%) and stable disease in seven patients (44%), whereas four patients (25%) developed progressive disease resulting in an overall response rate of 31%. Mean duration of responses (CR+PR) was 3.6 (range 0.7-8.5) months and mean time to progression was 7.4 (range 3.8-12.6) months, After a mean observation period of 11.5 months the overall survival was 9.6 months with 12 patients (75%) still being alive, which compares favorably with historical data of the administration of gemcitabine alone. The performance status improved in three (19%) and stabilized in eight (50%) out of 16 patients for 4 weeks or longer. Treatment-associated toxicity Included alopecia of WHO grade III in all cases, leukopenia of WHO grades 1 and II in 10 patients (63%), grade III in five patients (31%), and thrombocytopenia grades I and II in four patients (25%), and grades III and IV in 10 patients (63%), We conclude that the administered dosage and schedule of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer of the pancreas constitutes an active cytotoxic regimen associated with moderate toxicity. [(C) 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.].

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

4.4
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