2008Cancer Research and TreatmentOpen access

Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine Combined with Cisplatin Treatment Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis

Jaehyuk Choi, Sung Yong Oh, Hyuk-Chan Kwon, Jung Hwan Kim, Jae Hoon Lee, Suee Lee, Dong Mee Lee, Sung-Hyun Kim, Myung Hwan Rho, Young-Hoon Kim, Mee-Sook Rho, Hyojin Kim

Open full text 13 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine is the most active agent to treat unresectable pancreatic cancer. The superiority of combining other drugs with cisplatin is still controversial; therefore, we performed a retrospective analysis of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine combined with cisplatin to determine the treatment outcomes for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2007, we enrolled 60 patients who were treated with gemcitabine or gemcitabine combined with cisplatin for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine 1, 000 mg/m(2) (G) was administrated at day 1 and day 8 every 3 weeks. Cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) was added at day 1 every 3 weeks to the gemcitabine schedule (GP). RESULTS: NUMBER OF G: GP was 34: 26, locally advanced to metastatic ratio was 35% to 65% in group G and 46% to 54% in group GP. Median follow up duration was 29 months. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 4 (range: 2 approximately 11) for the G group, and 4 (range: 1 approximately 11) for the GP group. The response rate of the G and GP groups was 17% and 11%, respectively. The progression free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months and 2.8 months, respectively, for the G and GP groups. The overall survival (OS) was 10.7 and 8.7 months respectively, for the G and GP groups, but there is no statistically significant difference of the PFS (p=0.2396) and OS (p=0.4643) between the 2 groups. The hematological toxicity profile was similar (the grade III neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 4.4% and 3.1%, respectively, in G group, and 7.5% and 2.8%, respectively, in the GP group). But non-hematological toxicities such as skin rash, abnormal liver function and nausea/vomiting were observed in 3 patients of the GP group. On the prognostic factor analysis, no factors predicted a longer PFS and OS for both the G and GP groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine single treatment might be more tolerable and it had the same efficacy compared to cisplatin combination treatment in this retrospective study.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine is the most active agent to treat unresectable pancreatic cancer. The superiority of combining other drugs with cisplatin is still controversial; therefore, we performed a retrospective analysis of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine combined with cisplatin to determine the treatment outcomes for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2007, we enrolled 60 patients who were treated with gemcitabine or gemcitabine combined with cisplatin for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine 1, 000 mg/m(2) (G) was administrated at day 1 and day 8 every 3 weeks. Cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) was added at day 1 every 3 weeks to the gemcitabine schedule (GP). RESULTS: NUMBER OF G: GP was 34: 26, locally advanced to metastatic ratio was 35% to 65% in group G and 46% to 54% in group GP. Median follow up duration was 29 months. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 4 (range: 2 approximately 11) for the G group, and 4 (range: 1 approximately 11) for the GP group. The response rate of the G and GP groups was 17% and 11%, respectively. The progression free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months and 2.8 months, respectively, for the G and GP groups. The overall survival (OS) was 10.7 and 8.7 months respectively, for the G and GP groups, but there is no statistically significant difference of the PFS (p=0.2396) and OS (p=0.4643) between the 2 groups. The hematological toxicity profile was similar (the grade III neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 4.4% and 3.1%, respectively, in G group, and 7.5% and 2.8%, respectively, in the GP group). But non-hematological toxicities such as skin rash, abnormal liver function and nausea/vomiting were observed in 3 patients of the GP group. On the prognostic factor analysis, no factors predicted a longer PFS and OS for both the G and GP groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine single treatment might be more tolerable and it had the same efficacy compared to cisplatin combination treatment in this retrospective study.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine is the most active agent to treat unresectable pancreatic cancer. The superiority of combining other drugs with cisplatin is still controversial; therefore, we performed a retrospective analysis of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine combined with cisplatin to determine the treatment outcomes for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2007, we enrolled 60 patients who were treated with gemcitabine or gemcitabine combined with cisplatin for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine 1, 000 mg/m(2) (G) was administrated at day 1 and day 8 every 3 weeks. Cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) was added at day 1 every 3 weeks to the gemcitabine schedule (GP). RESULTS: NUMBER OF G: GP was 34: 26, locally advanced to metastatic ratio was 35% to 65% in group G and 46% to 54% in group GP. Median follow up duration was 29 months. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 4 (range: 2 approximately 11) for the G group, and 4 (range: 1 approximately 11) for the GP group. The response rate of the G and GP groups was 17% and 11%, respectively. The progression free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months and 2.8 months, respectively, for the G and GP groups. The overall survival (OS) was 10.7 and 8.7 months respectively, for the G and GP groups, but there is no statistically significant difference of the PFS (p=0.2396) and OS (p=0.4643) between the 2 groups. The hematological toxicity profile was similar (the grade III neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 4.4% and 3.1%, respectively, in G group, and 7.5% and 2.8%, respectively, in the GP group). But non-hematological toxicities such as skin rash, abnormal liver function and nausea/vomiting were observed in 3 patients of the GP group. On the prognostic factor analysis, no factors predicted a longer PFS and OS for both the G and GP groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine single treatment might be more tolerable and it had the same efficacy compared to cisplatin combination treatment in this retrospective study.

Key concepts: Gemcitabine, Medicine, Cisplatin, Oncology, Pancreatic cancer, Deoxycytidine, Internal medicine, Retrospective cohort study

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine Combined with Cisplatin Treatment Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis — Research Paper | ScholarLens