A bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons of systemic regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer

© 2014 Chan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background: For advanced pancreatic cancer, many regimens have been compared with gemcitabine (G) as the standard arm in randomized controlled trials. Few regimens have been directly compared with each other in randomized controlled trials and the relative efficacy and safety among them remains unclear

Randomised, open-label, phase II study of Gemcitabine with and without IMM-101 for advanced pancreatic cancer

Background: Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to IMM-101 (10 mg ml−l intradermally)+GEM (1000 mg m−2 intravenously; n=75), or GEM alone (n=35). Safety was assessed on frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were collected. Results: IMM-101 was well tolerated with a similar rate of AE and serious adverse event reporting in both groups after allowance for exposure. Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 6.7 months for IMM-101+GEM v 5.6 months for GEM; while not significant, the hazard ratio (HR) numerically favoured IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44–1.04, P=0.074). In a pre-defined metastatic subgroup (84%), OS was significantly improved from 4.4 to 7.0 months in favour of IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P=0.01). Conclusions: IMM-101 with GEM was as safe and well tolerated as GEM alone, and there was a suggestion of a beneficial effect on survival in patients with metastatic disease. This warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered confirmatory study

Phase II trial of weekly 24-hour infusion of gemcitabine in patients with advanced gallbladder and biliary tract carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced gallbladder and biliary tract carcinoma face a dismal prognosis, as no effective palliative chemotherapy exists. The antitumor effect of gemcitabine is schedule-dependent rather than dose-dependent. We evaluated the activity of a prolonged infusion of gemcitabine in advanced gallbladder and biliary tract carcinomas. METHODS: Nineteen consecutive eligible patients were enrolled. All patients were required to have histologically confirmed diagnosis and measurable disease. Gemcitabine was infused over 24 hours at a dose of 100 mg/m(2 )on days 1, 8, and 15. Treatment was repeated every 28 days until progression of disease or limiting toxicity. Tumor response was evaluated every second course by computed tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. A total of 89 cycles of therapy were administered. One partial response was observed (6%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0–27%) and ten additional patients had stable disease for at least two months (disease control rate 61%; 95% CI: 36–83%). The therapy was well tolerated, with moderate myelosuppression as the main toxicity. The median time to tumor progression and median overall survival was 3.6 months (95% CI 2.6–4.6 months) and 7.5 months (95% CI 6.5–8.5 months), respectively. CONCLUSION: Weekly 24-hour gemcitabine at a dose of 100 mg/m(2 )is well tolerated. There was a relatively high rate of disease control for a median duration of 5.3 months (range 2.8–18.8 months). However, the objective response rate of this regimen in gallbladder and biliary tract carcinomas was limited