OBJECTIVE: The single agent gemcitabine is the standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. Recent studies of a combination of gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) revealed that survival data were superior to those with gemcitabine or 5-FU alone. The administration of oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) is more convenient and simulates the effect of a continuous or protracted infusion of 5-FU. Therefore, we conducted a phase II study of gemcitabine combined with UFT in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients and assessed the efficacy and the toxicity of the regimen. METHODS: Twenty-two pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients (18 males, 4 females) were enrolled from December 2000 to September 2002. The regimen consisted of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks, and oral UFT 390 mg/m(2)/day (in 3 divided doses) on days 1-14. The cycle was repeated every 28 days. The objective tumor response was evaluated after 2 courses of chemotherapy. RESULTS: 82 cycles were administered in total, with a median of 3 cycles per patient (range 1-6 cycles). The median age was 52 years (range 28-69 years). Response to treatment could be assessed in all patients. The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% CI, 7.8-45.4) with no complete response and 5 partial responses. Four patients (18.2%) had stable disease and 13 patients (59.1%) had a progression. The median time to progression was 4.2 months (range 0.9-13.6). The median overall survival was 5.8 months (range 0.5-13.6). Of 10 patients eligible for the assessment of clinical benefit response, 4 (40%, 95% CI 12.2-73.8) showed clinical benefit. Among 21 patients with baseline CA 19-9 levels, CA 19-9 was reduced by 50% or more in 12 patients (57.1%). The chemotherapy was generally well tolerated and the most common grade 3-4 toxic side effects were neutropenia (18.2%), anemia (4.5%), and diarrhea (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and UFT in metastatic pancreatic cancer was tolerable for most patients but showed modest response rates and clinical benefit. However, a randomized phase III study should be conducted in order to further test the efficacy of the regimen.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: