Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Topic or Issue
Home Search/Browse Subscriptions PDA Services My JCO Customer Service

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 24, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2006: 14073
© 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tschoep, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Issels, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tschoep, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Issels, R. D.

Abstract

Gemcitabine + cisplatin (GEM+CIS) in combination with regional hyperthermia (RHT) in second-line therapy of gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer

K. E. Tschoep, V. Milani, G. Schmidt, X. Schiel, S. Abdel-Rahman, M. F. Kuhlencordt, C. Salat, V. Maier, V. Heinemann and R. D. Issels

University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Interne Klinik Dr. Argirov, Kempfenhausen, Berg, Germany; Rotkreuz-Krankenhaus, Munich, Germany; Medical Clinic III, University of Munich and GSF, Munich, Germany

14073

Background: Our completed phase III trial comparing GEM + CIS vs. GEM alone showed good efficacy for the combination arm in 1st-line therapy (ASCO abstr. No. 1003, 2003). Based on the rationale of chemosensitization of CIS by RHT we are performing a prospective phase II study with GEM + CIS combined with RHT. Methods: Until 8/2005 12 pts with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who failed GEM-based 1st-line-therapy were enrolled in this study. One cycle consisted of GEM (1000mg/m2) on d1 followed by CIS (25mg/m2) on d2 and d4 combined with RHT (BSD system). A total of 2 blocks each of 4 cycles were given biweekly. The main endpoints were time to second progression (TTP2) and 1-year event free survival (1-yr-EFS). TTP2 and EFS were defined as time from start of 2nd-line therapy until progression of disease or death. Response (RECIST) was evaluated after 4 and 8 cycles of therapy. Results: Pt characteristics: median age 60; M:F=8:4. Median time to first progression (TTP1) was 6 months (95% CI:2–7). 8/12 pts received all 8 cycles. No toxic death and no grade 4 toxicity occurred. In 12/2005 10/12 pts were evaluable for this study. Control of disease (1CR, 2MR, 4NC) and progression (3PD) occurred in 70% and 30% respectively. The median TTP2 is 8 months (95% CI: 2–13) and the 1-yr-EFS is 32% (95% CI:3–61). 7 pts are alive at 12/2005. Conclusions: Our ongoing study (EudraCT-No 2005–003855–11) using RHT combined with GEM + CIS shows promising antitumor activity with a very encouraging TTP2 and median 1-yr-EFS in the 2nd-line treatment of GEM-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer.


Author Disclosure
Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration

Eli Lilly Lilly Germany






About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions

Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online