Gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A retrospective analysis of multicenter study.

İnal, Ali; Işikdoǧan, A.; Kos, T.; Algın, Efnan; Gumus, M.; Dikilitaş, Mustafa; Elkıran, Emin Tamer; Helvaci, K.; Geredeli, Çağlayan; Dane, Faysal; Balakan, Ozan; Durnalı, Ayşe; Harputluoğlu, Hakan; Özdemir, Nuriye; Buyukberber, S; Yıldız, Ramazan; Kaplan, Mehmet; Özkan, Melda Cömert; Uncu, Doğan

doi:10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.e14534

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Firstly, seven duplicates, 192 letters and reviews, 206 non‐human studies, and 180 non‐English studies were excluded from the study, 347 non‐cohort studies, 493 studies unrelated to advanced/metastatic PC, 358 studies unrelated to chemotherapy regimens, and four studies lacking data integrity or no data were excluded from the rest of 1221 studies after full‐text review. Finally, 19 RCTs eligible to the study were included for meta‐analysis (appendix Figure ). These included studies included 5904 patients suffering from advanced/metastatic PC, and a majority of the patients were treated with the Gemcitabine regimen.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxicity of chemotherapy regimens in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer therapy: A network meta‐analysis

Wang

Huang

Nie

et al. 2018

J of Cellular Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This network meta-analysis is adopted in order to compare the toxicity of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about different chemotherapy regimens for advanced/metastatic PC were included in this network meta-analysis using Cochrane Library and PubMed electronic databases. The network meta-analysis was performed to combine direct and indirect evidence in order to calculate the odd ratios (OR) and draw a surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. A total of 19 RCTs were enrolled in this network meta-analysis including 12 chemotherapy regimens (Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + S-1 [tegafur], Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, FOLFIRINOX [oxaliplatin + irinotecan + fluorouracil + leucovorin], Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, Gemcitabine + pemetrexed, Gemcitabine + 5-FU, S-1). The incidence of anemia of Gemcitabine + Capecitabine regimen was higher compared with Gemcitabine regimen, Gemcitabine + pemetrexed regimen exhibited the highest incidence rates of anemia and neutropenia; while Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin and FOLFIRINOX regimens exhibited the highest incidence rates of neutropenia. However, S-1 regimen exhibited lower incidence rates of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia. Moreover, the incidence rates of nausea/vomiting and rash of Gemcitabine + S-1 regimen were higher compared with Gemcitabine regimen, while Gemcitabine + Cisplatin regimen had the highest incidence rate of nausea/vomiting. This study demonstrated that the hematologic toxicity of S-1 regimen was the lowest, while Gemcitabine regimen exhibited the lowest incidence rate of non-hematologic toxicity, providing guidance for the treatment of advanced/metastatic PC.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxicity of chemotherapy regimens in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer therapy: A network meta‐analysis

Wang

Huang

Nie

et al. 2018

J of Cellular Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the remaining 1262‐studies, some studies were further eliminated, which included 454 non‐randomized controlled studies, 263 non‐advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer studies and 523 articles not relative to chemotherapy regimens and 1 article without any data or incomplete data. Finally, 20 RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the meta‐analysis [Colucci et al, , ; Scheithauer et al, ; Rocha Lima et al, ; Di Costanzo et al, ; Louvet et al, ; Oettle et al, ; Abou‐Alfa et al, ; Heinemann et al, ; Stathopoulos et al, ; Herrmann et al, ; Cunningham et al, ; Conroy et al, ; Inal et al, ; Nakai et al, ; Ozaka et al, ; Chao et al, ; Ueno et al, ; Sudo et al, ; Goldstein et al, ] (as shown in Fig. ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Toxicity of Different Chemotherapy Regimens in the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Network Meta‐Analysis

Liu

Zhao

2017

J of Cellular Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and toxicity of different chemotherapy regimens in treating advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from inception to June 2016 were searched. A combination of direct and indirect evidences was referred to for calculating the weighted mean difference (WMD) or the odds ratio (OR) and to establish surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves, so as to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of different chemotherapy regimens in treating advanced or metastatic PC. Twenty randomized controlled trials were enrolled. Twelve chemotherapy regimens included, Gemcitabine þ Oxaliplatin, and Gemcitabine þ Pemetrexed. Higher overall response rate (ORR) was observed in patients treated with the gemcitabine þ S-1 and FOLFIRINO regimens. Thrombocytopenia reduced in patients treated with the S-1 regimen. The Gemcitabine þ S-1 and FOLFIRINO regimens had better short-and long-term efficacies than the other regimens; S-1 regimen had the lowest hematologic toxicity, while Gemcitabine þ Nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, and Gemcitabine þ Pemetrexed regimens had higher incidence of non-hematologic toxicity among twelve chemotherapy regimens. The efficacy of Gemcitabine þ S-1 and FOLFIRINOX regimens may be better in treating patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, while FOLFIRINOX and Gemcitabine þ Pemetrexed regimens may have relatively higher incidence of toxicity than other regimens.

show abstract

“…After a detailed assessment of the remaining 1,422 references, we excluded 452 non‐RCTs, 421 non‐advanced or metastatic PC studies, 528 non‐first‐line chemotherapy regimen studies, and 1 incomplete data reference. At last, a total of 20 randomized controlled trials were included to conduct our NMA (Abou‐Alfa et al, ; Chao et al, ; Colucci et al, ; Colucci et al, ; Conroy et al, ; Cunningham et al, ; Di Costanzo et al, ; Goldstein et al, Heinemann et al, ; Herrmann et al, ; Inal et al, ; Louvet et al, ; Nakai et al, ; Oettle et al, ; Ozaka et al, ; Scheithauer et al, ; Rocha Lima et al, ; Stathopoulos et al, ; Sudo et al, ; Ueno et al, ) (Appendix Figure ). The baseline characteristics of the included literatures are shown in Appendix Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, if left untreated without effective treatment, the disease progress after initial treatment (Chao et al, ). Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma is often refractory and unresponsive to standard chemotherapy (Inal et al, ). Chemotherapy with the single‐agent Gemcitabine has been recommended as primary chemotherapy option for the treatment of local, advanced, and metastatic PC (Li, Xie, Wolff, & Abbruzzese, ; Tempero, Arnoletti, Behrman, Ben‐Josef, & Casper, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: A network meta‐analysis

Zhang

Liu

et al. 2017

Journal Cellular Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the short- and long-term efficacy of Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + S-1 (tegafur), Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin + irinotecan + fluorouracil + leucovorin), Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, Gemcitabine + pemetrexed, Gemcitabine + 5-FU, and S-1 in treating advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). The odds radios (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were evaluated by a combination of direct evidence and indirect evidence. In total twenty studies were included in this paper. For short-term efficacy, the overall response rate (ORR) was lower for patients treated with Gemcitabine compared with Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan and S-1. The ORR for FOLFIRINOX was higher compared with Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine and Gemcitabine + Cisplatin. The disease control rate (DCR) for Gemcitabine was lower compared with Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, and FOLFIRINOX. For long-term efficacy, the 12-month overall survival (OS) rate for FOLFIRINOX was higher compared with Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, and Gemcitabine + pemetrexed. The SUCRA revealed that FOLFIRINOX was relatively better in both short- and long-term efficacy, while Gemcitabine was relatively poorer. In both short- and long-term efficacy, FOLFIRINOX had the best short- and long-term efficacy among the 12 chemotherapy regimens while efficacy of Gemcitabine was relatively poorer in the treatment of advanced or metastatic PC.

show abstract

Gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A retrospective analysis of multicenter study.

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Toxicity of chemotherapy regimens in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer therapy: A network meta‐analysis

Toxicity of chemotherapy regimens in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer therapy: A network meta‐analysis

Efficacy and Toxicity of Different Chemotherapy Regimens in the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Network Meta‐Analysis

Efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: A network meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About