SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Gemcitabine”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin versus ifosfamide+gemcitabine followed by vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin followed by ifosfamide and gemcitabine in stage IIIB-IV non small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized phase III trial of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale.

PURPOSE: we carried out a phase III randomized trial to compare vinorelbine-cisplatin regimen to gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen, and to a sequential administration of gemcitabine-ifosfamide followed by vinorelbine-cisplatin or the opposite sequence of vinorelbine-cisplatin followed by ifosfamide-gemcitabine according to the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis in patients with locally advanced unresectable stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was survival parameters, while secondary endpoints included analysis of response rates and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: patients were randomized to receive: (a) gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 plus ifosfamide 1500 mg/m(2) on days 8-12 with mesna uroprotection (GI regimen) followed by vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 (GI --> VC regimen); (b) the opposite sequence (VC --> GI); (c) vinorelbine plus cisplatin as above described (VC regimen); or (d) gemcitabine 1400 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 8 (GC regimen). All regimens were given every 4 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy naive and had a ECOG PS 0-2. RESULTS: 400 patients were enrolled into the trial. Interim analysis after inclusion of 243 patients showed that ORR were 19% in the GI --> VC arm, 32% in the inverse sequence arm (CV --> GI), 42% in the VC arm, and 30% in the GC arm. The VC arm was statistically superior over the GI --> VC arm (p = 0.0074), but not over the other regimens. Median TTP was 3.1 months in the GI --> VC arm versus 5.0 months in the VC --> GI arm (p = 0.014). For these reasons the GI --> VC and VC --> GI arm were closed since the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis was rejected. Accrual in the VC and GC arms continued up to 140 and 138 patients respectively. Final ORR were 44% for the VC regimen (4 CR), and 34% for the GC regimen (1 CR). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.032). OS was 9.0 and 8.2 months, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. The 1-year survival rate was 24 and 20%, respectively for VC and GC regimens. As expected the incidence of phlebitis was higher in the VC arm, while thrombocytopenia, flu-like syndrome and asthenia were more frequent in the GC arm. CONCLUSIONS: the results of this trial indicate that the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin and that of gemcitabine and cisplatin are equivalent in terms of median TTP and OS, although the vinorelbine-cisplatin regimen is associated with a higher ORR. Both regimens may be considered as reference treatments for future studies. Moreover, our data reject the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis of sequential treatments in NSCCL at least with the combination used in this study.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2006

Randomized phase III study of exatecan and gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in untreated advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Exatecan mesylate is a hexacyclic, water-soluble, topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Exatecan has single-agent and combination activity with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial comparing exatecan plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included Karnofsky performance status > or = 60%, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and no prior chemotherapy. Radiation alone for locally advanced disease was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis. For the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm, exatecan 2.0 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Gemcitabine alone was dosed at 1,000 mg/m2 up to 7 weeks in the first cycle, then once a week for the first 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Tumor assessment was performed every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: From August 2001 to January 2003, 349 patients were randomly assigned, 175 to exatecan plus gemcitabine and 174 to gemcitabine alone. Twenty-four patients (6.9%) were not treated. The median survival time was 6.7 months for exatecan plus gemcitabine and 6.2 months for gemcitabine alone (P = .52). One complete response (CR; < 1%) and 11 partial responses (PRs; 6.3%) were observed in the exatecan plus gemcitabine treatment group, and one CR (< 1%) and eight PRs (4.6%) were observed in the gemcitabine-alone group. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were higher for the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm versus the gemcitabine alone arm; neutropenia (30% v 15%) and thrombocytopenia (15% v 4%). CONCLUSION: Exatecan plus gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Adult↗

PubMed2007

Gemcitabine chemoresistance and molecular markers associated with gemcitabine transport and metabolism in human pancreatic cancer cells.

To identify predictive molecular markers for gemcitabine resistance, we investigated changes in the expression of four genes associated with gemcitabine transport and metabolism during the development of acquired gemcitabine resistance of pancreatic cancer cell lines. The expression levels of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1), deoxycytidine kinase (dCK), RRM1, and RRM2 mRNA were analysed by real-time light cycler-PCR in various subclones during the development of acquired resistance to gemcitabine. Real-time light cycler-PCR demonstrated that the expression levels of either RRM1 or RRM2 progressively increased during the development of gemcitabine resistance. Expression of dCK was slightly increased in cells resistant to lower concentrations of gemcitabine, but was decreased below the undetectable level in higher concentration-resistant subclones. Expression of hENT1 was increased in the development of gemcitabine resistance. As acquired resistance to gemcitabine seems to correlate with the balance of these four factors, we calculated the ratio of hENT1 x dCK/RRM1 x RRM2 gene expression in gemcitabine-resistant subclones. The ratio of gene expression decreased progressively with development of acquired resistance in gemcitabine-resistant subclones. Furthermore, the expression ratio significantly correlated with gemcitabine sensitivity in eight pancreatic cancer cell lines, whereas no single gene expression level correlated with the sensitivity. These results suggest that the sensitivity of pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine is determined by the ratio of four factors involved in gemcitabine transport and metabolism. The ratio of the four gene expression levels correlates with acquired gemcitabine-resistance in pancreatic cancer cells, and may be useful as a predictive marker for the efficacy of gemcitabine therapy in pancreatic cancer patients.

Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic↗

PubMed2002

Phase III study of gemcitabine in combination with fluorouracil versus gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial E2297.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine is generally considered to constitute first-line therapy for pancreatic cancer. To determine whether the addition of fluorouracil (5-FU) improves on the results from single-agent gemcitabine, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) compared gemcitabine plus bolus 5-FU with gemcitabine alone for patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial involved patients with biopsy-proven, advanced carcinoma of the pancreas not amenable to surgical resection. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine alone (1,000 mg/m(2)/wk) weekly for 3 weeks of every 4 or to receive gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)/wk) followed by 5-FU (600 mg/m(2)/wk) weekly on the same schedule. The primary end point of the trial was survival, with secondary end points of time to progression and response rate. RESULTS: Of 327 patients enrolled over 18 months, 322 were eligible. Overall, the median survival was 5.4 months for gemcitabine alone and 6.7 months for gemcitabine plus 5-FU (P =.09). Progression-free survival for gemcitabine alone was 2.2 months, compared with 3.4 months for gemcitabine plus 5-FU (P =.022). Objective responses were uncommon and were observed in only 5.6% of patients treated with gemcitabine and 6.9% of patients treated with gemcitabine plus 5-FU. Most toxicities were hematologic or gastrointestinal; no significant differences were noted between the two treatment arms. CONCLUSION: 5-FU, administered in conjunction with gemcitabine, did not improve the median survival of patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Further studies with other combinations of gemcitabine and 5-FU are not compelling, and clinical trial resources should address other combinations and novel agents.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Gemcitabine plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer--a randomized trial with quality of life as the primary outcome. UK NSCLC Gemcitabine Group. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Three hundred patients with symptomatic, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not requiring immediate radiotherapy were enrolled into this randomized multicentre trial comparing gemcitabine + BSC vs BSC alone. Patients allocated gemcitabine received 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for a maximum of six cycles. The main aim of this trial was to compare patient assessment of a predefined subset of commonly reported symptoms (SS14) from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 scales. The primary end-points were defined as (1) the percentage change in mean SS14 score between baseline and 2 months and (2) the proportion of patients with a marked (> or = 25%) improvement in SS14 score between baseline and 2 months sustained for > or =4 weeks. The secondary objectives were to compare treatments with respect to overall survival, and multidimensional QL parameters. The treatment groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and disease stage (40% had metastatic disease). The percentage change in mean SS14 score from baseline to 2 months was a 10% decrease (i.e. improvement) for gemcitabine plus BSC and a 1% increase (i.e. deterioration) for BSC alone (P = 0.113, two-sample t-test). A sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement (> or =25%) on SS14 was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of gemcitabine + BSC patients (22%) than in BSC alone patients (9%) (P = 0.0014, Pearson's chi-squared test). The QLQ-C30 and L13 subscales showed greater improvement in the gemcitabine plus BSC arm (in 11 domains) than in the BSC arm (one symptom item). There was greater deterioration in the BSC alone arm (six domains/items) than in the gemcitabine + BSC arm (three QL domains). Tumour response occurred in 19% (95% CI 13-27) of gemcitabine patients. There was no difference in overall survival: median 5.7 months (95% CI 4.6-7.6) for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.0-7.9) (log-rank, P = 0.84) for BSC patients, and 1 -year survival was 25% for gemcitabine + BSC and 22% for BSC. Overall, 74 (49%) gemcitabine + BSC patients and 119 (79%) BSC patients received palliative radiotherapy. The median time to radiotherapy was 29 weeks for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 3.8 weeks for BSC. Patients treated with gemcitabine + BSC reported better QL and reduced disease-related symptoms compared with those receiving BSC alone. These improvements in patient-assessed QL were significant in magnitude and were sustained.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

The determinants of sensitivity and acquired resistance to gemcitabine differ in non-small cell lung cancer: a role of ABCC5 in gemcitabine sensitivity.

We examined the expression levels of the multidrug resistance protein 5 (ABCC5) gene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines to clarify the relationship with the sensitivity to gemcitabine. The expression levels of ABCC5 were inversely correlated with gemcitabine sensitivity significantly (r = 0.628; P < 0.01) in 17 NSCLC cells, whereas the expression of ABCC5 in the gemcitabine-resistant NSCLC cell line H23/GEM-R was the same as that in parental NCI-H23 cells. Treatment with the ABCC5 inhibitor zaprinast altered the sensitivity to gemcitabine in ABCC5-expressing NSCLC cells. In addition, decreasing the expression of ABCC5 by small interfering RNA altered the cytotoxicity to gemcitabine. These results indicate that modulation of ABCC5 activity could be used to increase the gemcitabine sensitivity in NSCLC. Previously, we found a decreased expression of deoxycytidine kinase in H23/GEM-R cells, and further investigation in this study showed an increased expression of ribonucleotide reductase subunit 1 in H23/GEM-R cells. We therefore also examined the effect of modifying the expression of both genes on gemcitabine resistance. We found that using small interfering RNA to decrease the expression of ribonucleotide reductase subunit 1 resulted in a decreased resistance to gemcitabine in H23/GEM-R cells. Furthermore, pretreatment with pemetrexed resulted in an increased deoxycytidine kinase expression concomitant with the alteration of the resistance to gemcitabine in H23/GEM-R cells. The determinants for sensitivity and the acquired resistance in gemcitabine are quite different; nonetheless, modification of these factors may increase the efficacy of gemcitabine in the treatment of NSCLC.

Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Activity and toxicity of gemcitabine and gemcitabine + vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer elderly patients: Phase II data from the Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Following the demonstration that vinorelbine improves survival and quality of life compared with best supportive care in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we started the three-arm prospective Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) trial of vinorelbine, gemcitabine and gemcitabine + vinorelbine. DESIGN: Within the randomized phase 3 trial, pilot single-stage phase 2 studies were planned for gemcitabine and for gemcitabine + vinorelbine. Eligible patients are aged 70 or more, with stage IV or IIIb (with metastatic supraclavear nodes or malignant pleural effusion) NSCLC. Single-agent gemcitabine is given at 1200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8; in the combination, gemcitabine is given at 1000 mg/m(2) and vinorelbine at 25 mg/m(2), both on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. RESULTS: As planned 49 patients were enrolled in each group. Median age was 74 in both groups. Two-thirds of patients had stage IV disease. The response rate was 18.4% (95% exact CI 8.8-32.0) with both treatments. With single-agent gemcitabine main toxicities were grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 2 hepatic toxicity, in one patient each, and grade 2 pulmonary toxicity in two patients. With gemcitabine + vinorelbine combination there were grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (one patient each), grade 3 anemia requiring red blood cell transfusion (two patients), and grade 4 fever in two patients. Four patients, with severe cardiac comorbidities, suffered grade 3 heart toxicity with atrial flutter or fibrillation, followed by congestive heart failure responsive to treatment. CONCLUSION: Both single-agent gemcitabine and the gemcitabine + vinorelbine combination are sufficiently active and tolerable to allow continuation of the MILES study.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2004

Phase I clinical trial of fixed-dose rate infusional gemcitabine and dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with assessment of gemcitabine triphosphate accumulation.

BACKGROUND: In the current study, the authors set out to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) associated with a combination of gemcitabine and dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS), to obtain preliminary information on the activity of this combination, and to explore possible pharmacodynamic interactions between gemcitabine and DTIC. METHODS: Every 2 weeks, 22 patients with refractory ASTS received fixed-dose rate gemcitabine (10 mg/m2/min) at escalating doses, which ranged from 800 mg/m2 to 2160 mg/m2, plus 500 mg/m2 DTIC. Plasma concentrations of gemcitabine and 2',2'-difluorodeoxyuridine, along with gemcitabine triphosphate (dFdCTP) levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), were evaluated during the course of treatment. RESULTS: Grade 3 elevation of transaminase and gamma-glutamyltransferase levels represented the DLT associated with the administration of 2160 mg/m2 gemcitabine plus 500 mg/m2 DTIC. This side effect was reversible, rather than cumulative, and did not exceed Grade 3 in its severity. The doses recommended for use in subsequent Phase II studies are 1800 mg/m2 gemcitabine (administered over the course of 3 hours) and 500 mg/m2 DTIC. Hematologic toxicity was moderate, and nonhematologic side effects that did not exceed Grade 2 in severity included the following: asthenia (75% of patients), fever (59%), nausea (52%), stomatitis (48%), anorexia (44%), emesis (40%), flulike syndrome (37%), and erythematous rash (26%). Alopecia was common. Intracellular dFdCTP levels, which were evaluated in 6 patients, reached a mean maximum value of 209 pmol per 10(6) cells (standard deviation, 59 pmol per 10(6) cells) at the conclusion of gemcitabine administration. DTIC had a limited effect on the elimination of dFdCTP from PBMCs. Objective responses were observed in 5 of the 19 patients who were evaluable for treatment efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine and DTIC possesses an acceptable toxicity profile and may warrant further investigation in patients with ASTS.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Concurrent gemcitabine and radiotherapy with and without neoadjuvant gemcitabine for locally advanced unresectable or resected pancreatic cancer: a phase I-II study.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of biweekly gemcitabine with concurrent radiotherapy (RT) for resected and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had either LA or resected pancreatic cancer. Between March 1999 and July 2001, 63 patients (31 with LA and 32 with resected disease) were treated. Of the 63 patients, 28 were enrolled in a Phase I study of increasing radiation doses (35 Gy [n = 7], 43.75 Gy [n = 11], and 52.5 Gy [n = 10] given within 4, 5, or 6 weeks, respectively, in 1.75-Gy fractions) concurrently with 40 mg/m(2) gemcitabine biweekly. Subsequently, 35 were enrolled in a Phase II study with the addition of induction gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) within 7 or 8 weeks to concurrent biweekly gemcitabine (40 mg/m(2)) and 52.5 Gy RT within 6 weeks. RESULTS: In the LA population, the best response observed was a complete response in 1, partial response in 3, stable disease in 10, and progressive disease in 17. In the phase II trial, gemcitabine plus RT was not delivered to 8 patients because of progression with induction gemcitabine alone (n = 5) or by patient request (n = 3). On intent-to-treat analysis, the median survival in the LA patients was 13.9 months and the 2-year survival rate was 16.1%. In the resected population, the median progression-free survival was 8.3 months, the median survival was 18.4 months, and the 2- and 5-year survival rate was 36% and 19.4%, respectively. The treatment was well tolerated; the median gemcitabine dose intensity was 96% of the planned dose in the neoadjuvant and concurrent portions of the Phase II study. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Biweekly gemcitabine (40 mg/m(2)) concurrently with RT (52.5 Gy in 30 fractions of 1.75 Gy) with or without induction gemcitabine is safe and tolerable and shows efficacy in patients with LA and resected pancreatic cancer.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Prolonged gemcitabine infusion in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with stable disease after gemcitabine 30-min infusion.

BACKGROUND: Although 30-min gemcitabine infusion has become the standard administration, pre-clinical and clinical studies have suggested the possibility that an infusion rate of 10 mg/m(2) per minute may be more effective. The main objective of this study was to investigate whether the pursuance of gemcitabine, administered at a prolonged infusion rate, was able to convert stable disease to objective response after two or three cycle of standard administration. The secondary end-point was the evaluation of the new schedule toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients, with stage IIIA-B and IV NSCLC already treated by two or three cycles of 30-min gemcitabine infusion, alone or in combination with cisplatin, were enrolled: 26 patients (aged <70 years) were treated with cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) over 120 min on day 1 and 8 every three weeks and 12 patients (aged > or =70 years) were treated with gemcitabine alone 1200 mg/m(2) over 120 min on day 1 and 8 every three weeks, for two courses. Simon's two stage minimax design was applied to calculate the sample size. Assuming p(0) (low conversion rate) 5%, p(1) (target conversion rate of interest) 20%, alpha error 0.05, beta error 0.10 a total of 29 evaluable patients had to be accrued during stage 1. In case at least one objective response was observed, a further nine evaluable patients had to be enrolled into the study during stage 2. The regimen was considered promising if > or =4 objective responses out of 38 evaluable patients were observed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were evaluable for response and in five patients (with stable disease after two courses of gemcitabine 30' infusion) a partial response was observed (conversion rate 13.1%, 95% confidence interval 4.4-28%). Toxicities were more frequently observed with cisplatin plus 120-min gemcitabine infusion: grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia in 28, 22 and 16% of the courses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prolongation of gemcitabine infusion time is able to convert stable disease to partial response in 13% of the cases. The haematological toxicity seems enhanced with cisplatin plus gemcitabine prolonged infusion.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Gemcitabine versus cisplatin, epirubicin, fluorouracil, and gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a poor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival with standard treatment. We aimed to assess whether a four-drug regimen could improve 4 month progression-free survival compared with gemcitabine alone. METHODS: In a randomised multicentre phase III trial, 52 patients were randomly assigned to 40 mg/m2 cisplatin and 40 mg/m2 epirubicin both given on day 1, 600 mg/m2 gemcitabine given intravenously over 1 h on days 1 and 8, and 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil a day given by continuous infusion on days 1-28 of a 4-week cycle (PEFG regimen), and 47 were assigned to 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine given intravenously over 30 min once a week for 7 of 8 consecutive weeks in cycle 1 and for 3 of 4 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, objective response, safety, and quality of life. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 51 patients assigned PEFG and 46 assigned gemcitabine alone had disease progression. 49 patients in the PEFG group and 46 in the gemcitabine group died from progressive disease. More patients allocated PEFG than gemcitabine alone were alive without progressive disease at 4 months (60% [95% CI 46-72] vs 28% [17-42]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46 [0.26-0.79]). 1-year overall survival in the PEFG group was 38.5% (25.3-51.7) and in the gemcitabine group was 21.3% (9.6-33.0; HR 0.68 [0.42-1.09]). More patients assigned PEFG showed disease response than did those assigned gemcitabine (38.5% [25.3-51.7] vs 8.5% [0.5-16.5]; odds ratio 6.60 [2.11-20.60], p=0.0008). More patients in the PEFG group had grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia than in the gemcitabine group (p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The PEFG regimen could be considered for treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2002

A double-blind placebo-controlled, randomised study comparing gemcitabine and marimastat with gemcitabine and placebo as first line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death in the western world and the prognosis for unresectable disease remains poor. Recent advances in conventional chemotherapy and the development of novel 'molecular' treatment strategies with different toxicity profiles warrant investigation as combination treatment strategies. This randomised study in pancreatic cancer compares marimastat (orally administered matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor) in combination with gemcitabine to gemcitabine alone. Two hundred and thirty-nine patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were randomised to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg m(-2)) in combination with either marimastat or placebo. The primary end-point was survival. Objective tumour response and duration of response, time to treatment failure and disease progression, quality of life and safety were also assessed. There was no significant difference in survival between gemcitabine and marimastat and gemcitabine and placebo (P=0.95 log-rank test). Median survival times were 165.5 and 164 days and 1-year survival was 18% and 17% respectively. There were no significant differences in overall response rates (11 and 16% respectively), progression-free survival (P=0.68 log-rank test) or time to treatment failure (P=0.70 log-rank test) between the treatment arms. The gemcitabine and marimastat combination was well tolerated with only 2.5% of patients withdrawn due to presumed marimastat toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 musculoskeletal toxicities were reported in only 4% of the marimastat treated patients, although 59% of marimastat treated patients reported some musculoskeletal events. The results of this study provide no evidence to support a combination of marimastat with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The combination of marimastat with gemcitabine was well tolerated. Further studies of marimastat as a maintenance treatment following a response or stable disease on gemcitabine may be justified.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2006

Cisplatin and gemcitabine first-line chemotherapy followed by maintenance gemcitabine or best supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this randomized phase III study was to show significant difference in median time to progression (TTP) in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with single-agent gemcitabine maintenance therapy versus best supportive care following gemcitabine plus cisplatin initial first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8) plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (day 1) every 21 days. Patients achieving objective response or disease stabilization following initial gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy were randomized (2:1 fashion) to receive maintenance gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (GEM arm), or best supportive care only (BSC arm). RESULTS: Between November 1999 and November 2002, we enrolled 352 patients (median age: 57 years; stage IV disease: 74%; Karnofsky performance status (KPS) >80: 41%). Following initial therapy, 206 patients were randomized and treated with gemcitabine (138) or best supportive care (68). TTP throughout the study period was 6.6 and 5 months for GEM and BSC arms, respectively, while values for the maintenance period were 3.6 and 2.0 months (for p < 0.001 for both). Median overall survival (OS) throughout study was 13.0 months for GEM and 11.0 months for BSC arms (p = 0.195). The toxicity profile was mild, with neutropenia being most common grade 3/4 toxicities. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine, following initial therapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, was feasible, and produced significantly longer TTP compared to best supportive care alone. Further studies are warranted to establish the place of maintenance chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

DNA repair mechanisms involved in gemcitabine cytotoxicity and in the interaction between gemcitabine and cisplatin.

The influence of DNA repair mechanisms on the interaction between gemcitabine and cisplatin was studied using a panel of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell lines deficient in one of the following repair pathways: base excision repair (BER), nucleotide excision repair (NER), homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). NER and HR are known to be involved in platinum-DNA adduct repair. Single agent experiments demonstrated that each of the repair deficient cell lines had a similar sensitivity towards gemcitabine as the parental cell lines, whereas the NER- and HR-deficient lines showed increased sensitivity towards cisplatin. Furthermore, in the parental cell lines, the administration sequence cisplatin followed by gemcitabine was synergistic, whereas the reversed schedule showed additivity and simultaneous administration revealed antagonistic cytotoxicity. In the repair deficient cell lines, using this synergistic schedule of cisplatin followed by gemcitabine, loss of synergy was observed in the NER- and HR-deficient cell lines. However, the magnitude of the effect in the NER-deficient cells was small. The sensitivity to the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine shown by the BER- and NHEJ-deficient cell lines did not differ significantly from that of the parental cell line. Cellular accumulation of platinum as well as the formation of GG- and AG-intrastrand adducts in the parental line and in the HR-deficient line were not affected by gemcitabine. In conclusion, our results indicate that BER, NER, HR, and NHEJ are most likely incapable of modulating the cytotoxicity of gemcitabine, and that HR is involved in the synergistic interaction between cisplatin and gemcitabine in our cell system.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

Pharmacology of the paclitaxel-cisplatin, gemcitabine-cisplatin, and paclitaxel-gemcitabine combinations in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacology of the paclitaxel-cisplatin, gemcitabine-cisplatin and paclitaxel-gemcitabine combinations in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four chemo-naive patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive one of the three regimens. Plasma pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic parameters in mononuclear cells were compared and related to toxicity and efficacy. RESULTS: Pharmacological parameters of gemcitabine and cisplatin were not influenced by the combination with one of the other agents, while the paclitaxel clearance was significantly lower for the combination with cisplatin as compared to gemcitabine (P=0.024). The percentage decrease in platelets was significantly higher for the gemcitabine combinations (P=0.004) and related to the dFdCTP-Cmax (P=0.030). Pharmacologic parameters were not related to response or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine and cisplatin pharmacology were not influenced by the combination with one of the other agents, while paclitaxel has a lower clearance in combination with cisplatin as compared to gemcitabine.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

In vitro synergistic cytotoxicity of gemcitabine and pemetrexed and pharmacogenetic evaluation of response to gemcitabine in bladder cancer patients.

The present study was performed to investigate the capability of gemcitabine and pemetrexed to synergistically interact with respect to cytotoxicity and apoptosis in T24 and J82 bladder cancer cells, and to establish a correlation between drug activity and gene expression of selected genes in tumour samples. The interaction between gemcitabine and pemetrexed was synergistic; indeed, pemetrexed favoured gemcitabine cytotoxicity by increasing cellular population in S-phase, reducing Akt phosphorylation as well as by inducing the expression of a major gemcitabine uptake system, the human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1), and the key activating enzyme deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) in both cell lines. Bladder tumour specimens showed an heterogeneous gene expression pattern and patients with higher levels of dCK and hENT1 had better response. Moreover, human nucleoside concentrative transporter-1 was detectable only in 3/12 patients, two of whom presented a complete response to gemcitabine. These data provide evidence that the chemotherapeutic activity of the combination of gemcitabine and pemetrexed is synergistic against bladder cancer cells in vitro and that the assessment of the expression of genes involved in gemcitabine uptake and activation might be a possible determinant of bladder cancer response and may represent a new tool for treatment optimization.

Administration, Intravesical↗

PubMed2005

A phase III trial of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine in patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase III study compared the overall survival (OS) of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine (PG) versus standard gemcitabine (G) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer and no prior systemic therapy (including 5-fluorouracil as a radiosensitizer) were randomized to receive either 1,250 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) after gemcitabine on day 8 (PG arm) of each 21-day cycle, or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (G arm). RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-five patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics were randomly assigned (283 PG, 282 G). OS was not improved on the PG arm (6.2 months) compared with the G arm (6.3 months) (P=0.8477). Progression-free survival (3.9 versus 3.3 months; P=0.1109) and time to treatment failure (3 versus 2.2 months; P=0.2680) results were similar. Tumor response rate (14.8% versus 7.1%; P=0.004) was significantly better on the PG arm. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (45.1% versus 12.8%), thrombocytopenia (17.9% versus 6.2%), anemia (13.9% versus 2.9%), febrile neutropenia (9.9% versus 0.4%; all P <0.001) and fatigue (15% versus 6.6%; P=0.002) were significantly more common on the PG arm. Four treatment-related deaths occurred on the PG arm and none in the G arm. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed plus gemcitabine therapy did not improve OS. Single-agent gemcitabine remains the standard of care for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Gemcitabine plus CI-994 offers no advantage over gemcitabine alone in the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: results of a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: CI-994, an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor, has antineoplastic activity and synergism with gemcitabine preclinically. This randomized phase II trial explored whether CI-994 plus gemcitabine improves overall survival, objective response, duration of response, time to treatment failure and change in quality of life (QoL) or pain compared with gemcitabine alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 174 patients received CG (CI-994 6 mg/m(2)/day days 1-21 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1, 8 and 15 each 28-day cycle) or PG (placebo plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle days 1-21). RESULTS: Median survival was 194 days (CG) versus 214 days (PG) (P = 0.908). The objective response rate with CG was 12% versus 14% with PG when investigator-assessed and 1% versus 6%, respectively, when assessed centrally. Time to treatment failure did not differ between the two arms (P = 0.304). QoL scores at 2 months were worse with CG than with PG. Pain response rates were similar between the two groups. There was an increased incidence of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia with CG. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CI-994 to gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic carcinoma does not improve overall survival, response rate or time to progression; CG produced decreased QoL and increased hematological toxicity and appears inferior to single-agent gemcitabine.

Adenocarcinoma↗