Meta-analysis on inoperable pancreatic cancer: A comparison between gemcitabine-based combination therapy and gemcitabine alone

doi:10.3748/wjg.v12.i43.6973

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 12, Issue 43

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (3771)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-7) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

371

HTML

2735

Figures (1-7)

468

Tables (1-3)

197

Sum=3771

Nov 21, 2006 (publication date) through Nov 4, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (30)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Clinical Research

World J Gastroenterol. Nov 21, 2006; 12(43): 6973-6981
Published online Nov 21, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i43.6973

Table 1 Randomized controlled trials (GEM combination vs GEM alone)

Studies	Intervention	Patients	OS (d)	6-mo survival (%)	1-yr survival (%)	6-mo TTP/PFS/TTF rate (%)	ORR (CR + PR) %	CBR	Jadad score
Scheithauer 2003[8]	Gem	42	246	59.4	37.2	24.6 (PFS)	6/42	10/30	3
Scheithauer 2003[8]	Gem + Capecitabine	41	285	67.7	31.8	36.9	7/41	15/31
Colucci 2002[9]	Gem	54	140	31.5	11	18 (TTP)	5/48	21/43	3
Colucci 2002[9]	Gem + DDP	53	210	47	11.3	28	14/45	20/38
Wang XY 2002[10]	Gem	20	-	81.3	31.3	-	1/16	14/16	3
Wang XY 2002[10]	Gem + DDP	22	-	61.6	11.1	-	2/18	14/20
Gansauge 2002[11]	Gem	28	144	32	11	-	1/28	-	3
Gansauge 2002[11]	Gem + NSC-631570	28	279	64	29	-	6/28	-
Berlin 2002[12]	Gem	162	162	42	15.5	32/160 (PFS)	9/162	-	3
Berlin 2002[12]	Gem + 5-FU	160	201	55	21.9	41/158	11/160	-
Bramhall 2002[13]	Gem + placebo	119	164	43	17	23 (TTF)	14/88	-	5
Bramhall 2002[13]	Gem + marimastat	120	165.5	47	18	29	11/97	-
Cutsem 2004[14]	Gem + placebo	347	182	49	24	-	28/347	-	5
Cutsem 2004[14]		341	193	53	27	-	20/341	-
Louvet 2005[15]	Gem	156	213	60.4	27.8	27.4 (PFS)	27/156	26.9	3
Louvet 2005[15]	Gem¹ + Oxaliplatin	157	270	68	34.7	43	42/157	38.2
Reilly 2004[16]	Gem	174	186	51	21	27 (TTP)	9/127	-	3
Reilly 2004[16]	Gem + DX-8951f	175	201	54	23	39	12/147	-
Richards 2004[17]	Gem	282	189	50.9	20.1	27.6 (PFS)	20/220	-	3
Richards 2004[17]	Gem + Pemetrexed	283	186	50.9	21.4	32.1	42/230	-
Li CP 2004[18]	Gem	25	138	20.3	13.6	11.8 (TTP)	3/25	9/25	3
Li CP 2004[18]	Gem + DDP	21	168	31.1	6.3	11.8	2/21	6/21
Reni 2004[19]	Gem	47	-	63.9	21.3	12.9 (PFS)	4/47	5/20	3
Reni 2004[19]	Gem + 5-FU + DDP + EPI	52	-	64.6	38.5	37.4	20/52	15/23
Viret 2004[20]	Gem	41	201	58.3	25.1	10 (TTF)	2/41	-	3
Viret 2004[20]	Gem + DDP	42	241	55.5	32.4	14	3/42	-
Rocha Lima 2004[21]	Gem	180	198	52.9	22	21.9 (TTP)	8/180	-	3
Rocha Lima 2004[21]	Gem + Irinotecan	180	189	50.7	21	30.6	29/180	-
Costanzo 2001[22]	Gem	49	217	59	14.5	-	4/48	-	3
Costanzo 2001[22]	Gem + 5-FU	44	210	59	23.3	-	5/43	-
Heinemann 2003[23]	Gem	97	180	48.6	22.5	25.6 (TTP)	8/93	-	3
Heinemann 2003[23]	Gem + DDP	95	228	59.4	27.5	39.3	10/92	-
Kulke 2004[24]	Gem²	45	-	24/45	-	-	-	-	3
	Gem + DDP	45	-	23/45	-	-	-	-
	Gem + Docetaxel	49	-	22/49	-	-	-	-
	Gem + Irinotecan	44	-	21/44	-	-	-	-
Richards 2002[25]	Gem + Placebo	88	213	62.9	20.4	25.9 (TTF)	5/63	-	5
Richards 2002[25]	Gem + CI-994	86	191	60.8	18.5	16.7	1/61	-
Moore 2005[26]	Gem + Erlotinib	285	191	58	24	32 (PFS)	23/268	-	5
Moore 2005[26]	Gem + placebo	284	177	49	17	25	21/262	-
Stathopoulos 2005[27]	Gem	70	195	50	21.82	-	7/70	-	3
Stathopoulos 2005[27]	Gem + Irinotecan	60	192	60	24.29	-	9/60	-
Riess 2005[28]	Gem	236	186	53	20	30 (TTP)	17/236	-	3
Riess 2005[28]	Gem + 5-FU/CF	230	175.5	49	20	29	11/230	-
Herrmann 2005[29]	Gem	157	219	62	27	42 (PFS)	12/152³	-	3
Herrmann 2005[29]	Gem + Capecitabine	159	252	60	31	42	15/148	-

¹Gemcitabine 1 g/m² as a 100-min infusion;

²Gemcitabine 1500 mg/m² at a fixed dose rate of 10 mg/m² per minute;

³RECIST criteria.

Table 2 Toxic effects recorded from randomized controlled trials (Grade 3-4 toxic effects)

Studies	Intervention	Neutrophils	Platelets	Anemia	Infection	Nausea/vomit	Mucositis	Diarrhea
Scheithauer2003[8]	Gem	3/39	1/39	0	0	0	0	0
Scheithauer2003[8]	Gem + Capecitabine	4/40	0	2/40	0	0	0	2/40
Colucci 2002[9]	Gem	5/53	1/53	2/53	-	1/53	1/53	0
Colucci 2002[9]	Gem + DDP	9/51	1/51	3/51	-	1/51	0	2/51
Wang XY 2002[10]	Gem	5/19	7/19	2/19	-	0	-	-
Wang XY 2002[10]	Gem + DDP	7/21	8/21	9/21	-	2/21	-	-
Gansauge2002[11]	Gem	-	-	-	-	3/28	-	1/28
Gansauge2002[11]	Gem + NSC-631570	-	-	-	-	1/18	-	0
Berlin 2002[12]	Gem	8/158	17/158	16/158	-	30/158	3/158	/158
Berlin 2002[12]	Gem + 5-FU	11/158	30/158	16/158	-	29/158	2/158	/158
Bramhall 2002[13]	Gem + placebo	9/119	-	7/119	12/119	16/119	-	-
Bramhall 2002[13]	Gem + marimastat	3/120	-	3/120	11/120	13/120	-	-
Cutsem 2004[14]	Gem + placebo	103/342	41/342	55/342	-	58/342	-	10/342
Cutsem 2004[14]	Gem + R115777	132/331	50/331	66/331	-	46/331	-	13/331
Louvet 2005[15]	Gem	2/156	5/156	16/156	-	12/156	-	2/156
Louvet 2005[15]	Gem + Oxaliplatin	2/157	22/157	10/157	-	30/157	-	9/157
Reilly 2004[16]	Gem	24/157	7/157	13/157	-	17/157	-	2/157
Reilly 2004[16]	Gem + DX-8951f	50/168	28/168	11/168	-	33/168	-	6/168
Richards 2004[17]	Gem	35/273	17/273	8/273	-	18/273	-	2/273
Richards 2004[17]	Gem + Pemetrexed	123/273	49/273	38/273	-	18/273	-	8/273
Li CP 2004[18]	Gem	2/25	1/25	2/25	-	-	-	-
Li CP 2004[18]	Gem + DDP	4/21	5/21	2/21	-	-	-	-
Reni 2004[19]	Gem	9/47	1/47	2/47	-	4/47	1/47	-
Reni 2004[19]	Gem + 5-FU + DDP + EPI	22/52	15/52	2/52	-	3/52	2/52	-
Viret 2004[20]	Gem	16/40	5/40	11/40	-	3/40	-	-
Viret 2004[20]	Gem + DDP	23/41	14/41	14/41	-	9/41	-	-
Rocha Lima 2004[21]	Gem	54/169	24/169	22/169	-	31/169	-	3/169
Rocha Lima 2004[21]	Gem + Irinotecan	65/173	34/173	27/173	-	53/173	-	33/173
Costanzo 2001[22]	Gem	1/49	0	3/49	-	0	0	0
Costanzo 2001[22]	Gem + 5-FU	1/41	1/41	3/41	-	1/41	2/41	0
Heinemann 2003[23]	Gem	8/97	10/97	10/97	2/97	6/97	2/97	4/97
Heinemann 2003[23]	Gem + DDP	10/95	4/95	13/95	1/95	21/95	4/95	3/95
Kulke 2004[24]	Gem	27/58	15/58	6/58	6/58	13/58	-	1/58
	Gem + DDP	29/62	27/62	11/62	2/62	24/62	-	0/62
	Gem + Docetaxel	19/65	7/65	8/65	8/65	10/65	-	5/65
	Gem + Irinotecan	12/60	9/60	4/60	4/60	17/60	-	10/60
Moore2005[26]	Gem + Erlotinib	71/282	28/282	34/282	45/282	20/282	<1	17/282
Moore2005[26]	Gem + placebo	73/280	34/280	34/280	39/280	20/280	0	6/280
Stathopoulos 2005[27]	Gem	8/70	0/70	2/70	0	1/70	0	2/70
Stathopoulos 2005[27]	Gem + Irinotecan	10/60	2/60	2/60	0	1/60	0	2/60
Riess 2005[28]	Gem	27/225	15/225	15/225	19/225	16/225	-	9/225
Riess 2005[28]	Gem + 5-FU/CF	26/220	28/220	18/220	12/220	30/220	-	8/220
Herrmann 2005[29]	Gem	30/153	7/153	9/153	-	5/153	1/153	3/153
Herrmann 2005[29]	Gem + Capecitabine	34/155	8/155	9/155	-	8/155	0/155	8/155

5-FU: 5-fluororacil; EPI: Epirubicin.

Table 3 Subgroup analyses on 6-mo survival rate

Subgroups	Trials	Patients	Mode	RD [95% CI]	P
GEM plus targeted drug vs GEM alone	[13, 14, 26]	1496	Fixed	0.06 [0.01, 0.11]	0.02
GEM plus DDP vs GEM alone	[9, 10, 18, 20, 23, 24]	560	Fixed	0.05 [-0.03, 0.13]	0.24
GEM plus 5-FU vs GEM alone	[12, 22, 28]	881	Random	0.04 [-0.09, 0.17]	0.57
GEM plus topoisomerase I inhibitor vs GEM alone	[16, 21, 24, 27]	928	Fixed	0.01 [-0.05, 0.08]	0.72
GEM plus capecitabine vs GEM alone	[8, 29]	399	Fixed	0.00 [-0.08, 0.10]	0.97

Citation: Xie DR, Liang HL, Wang Y, Guo SS, Yang Q. Meta-analysis on inoperable pancreatic cancer: A comparison between gemcitabine-based combination therapy and gemcitabine alone. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(43): 6973-6981
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i43/6973.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v12.i43.6973