Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate

Caio Max Rocha Lima, Mark R. Green, Robert Rotche, Wilson H. Miller, G. Mark Jeffrey, Laura A. Cisar, Adele Morganti, Nicoletta Orlando, Gabriela Gruia, Langdon L. Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

509 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the overall survival associated with irinotecan plus gemcitabine (IRINOGEM) versus gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in patients with chemotherapy-naive, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: IRINOGEM patients received starting doses of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 given weekly for 2 weeks every 3-week cycle. GEM patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (induction) and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was survival. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to tumor progression (TTP), changes in CA 19-9, and safety. Results: In each arm, 180 randomly assigned patients comprised the intent-to-treat population evaluated for efficacy; 173 IRINOGEM and 169 GEM patients were treated. Median survival times were 6.3 months for IRINOGEM (95% CI, 4.7 to 7.5 months) and 6.6 months for GEM (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.8 months; log-rank P = .789). Tumor response rates were 16.1 % (95% CI, 11.1% to 22.3%) for IRINOGEM and 4.4% (95% CI, 1.9% to 8.6%) for GEM (χ2 P < .001). Median TTP was 3.5 months for IRINOGEM versus 3.0 months for GEM (log-rank P = .352). However, subset analyses in patients with locally advanced disease suggested a TTP advantage with IRINOGEM versus GEM (median, 7.7 v 3.9 months). CA 19-9 progression was positively correlated with tumor progression. The incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was higher in the IRINOGEM group but grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities and quality-of-life outcomes were similar. Conclusion: IRINOGEM safely improved the tumor response rate compared with GEM but did not alter overall survival.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3776-3783
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume22
Issue number18
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2004

Fingerprint

irinotecan
gemcitabine
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Survival
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate. / Lima, Caio Max Rocha; Green, Mark R.; Rotche, Robert; Miller, Wilson H.; Jeffrey, G. Mark; Cisar, Laura A.; Morganti, Adele; Orlando, Nicoletta; Gruia, Gabriela; Miller, Langdon L.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 22, No. 18, 01.12.2004, p. 3776-3783.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lima, Caio Max Rocha ; Green, Mark R. ; Rotche, Robert ; Miller, Wilson H. ; Jeffrey, G. Mark ; Cisar, Laura A. ; Morganti, Adele ; Orlando, Nicoletta ; Gruia, Gabriela ; Miller, Langdon L. / Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2004 ; Vol. 22, No. 18. pp. 3776-3783.
@article{e8162afde32040559d53364854d938c0,
title = "Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate",
abstract = "Purpose: This phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the overall survival associated with irinotecan plus gemcitabine (IRINOGEM) versus gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in patients with chemotherapy-naive, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: IRINOGEM patients received starting doses of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 given weekly for 2 weeks every 3-week cycle. GEM patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (induction) and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was survival. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to tumor progression (TTP), changes in CA 19-9, and safety. Results: In each arm, 180 randomly assigned patients comprised the intent-to-treat population evaluated for efficacy; 173 IRINOGEM and 169 GEM patients were treated. Median survival times were 6.3 months for IRINOGEM (95{\%} CI, 4.7 to 7.5 months) and 6.6 months for GEM (95{\%} CI, 5.2 to 7.8 months; log-rank P = .789). Tumor response rates were 16.1 {\%} (95{\%} CI, 11.1{\%} to 22.3{\%}) for IRINOGEM and 4.4{\%} (95{\%} CI, 1.9{\%} to 8.6{\%}) for GEM (χ2 P < .001). Median TTP was 3.5 months for IRINOGEM versus 3.0 months for GEM (log-rank P = .352). However, subset analyses in patients with locally advanced disease suggested a TTP advantage with IRINOGEM versus GEM (median, 7.7 v 3.9 months). CA 19-9 progression was positively correlated with tumor progression. The incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was higher in the IRINOGEM group but grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities and quality-of-life outcomes were similar. Conclusion: IRINOGEM safely improved the tumor response rate compared with GEM but did not alter overall survival.",
author = "Lima, {Caio Max Rocha} and Green, {Mark R.} and Robert Rotche and Miller, {Wilson H.} and Jeffrey, {G. Mark} and Cisar, {Laura A.} and Adele Morganti and Nicoletta Orlando and Gabriela Gruia and Miller, {Langdon L.}",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2004.12.082",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "3776--3783",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "18",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate

AU - Lima, Caio Max Rocha

AU - Green, Mark R.

AU - Rotche, Robert

AU - Miller, Wilson H.

AU - Jeffrey, G. Mark

AU - Cisar, Laura A.

AU - Morganti, Adele

AU - Orlando, Nicoletta

AU - Gruia, Gabriela

AU - Miller, Langdon L.

PY - 2004/12/1

Y1 - 2004/12/1

N2 - Purpose: This phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the overall survival associated with irinotecan plus gemcitabine (IRINOGEM) versus gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in patients with chemotherapy-naive, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: IRINOGEM patients received starting doses of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 given weekly for 2 weeks every 3-week cycle. GEM patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (induction) and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was survival. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to tumor progression (TTP), changes in CA 19-9, and safety. Results: In each arm, 180 randomly assigned patients comprised the intent-to-treat population evaluated for efficacy; 173 IRINOGEM and 169 GEM patients were treated. Median survival times were 6.3 months for IRINOGEM (95% CI, 4.7 to 7.5 months) and 6.6 months for GEM (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.8 months; log-rank P = .789). Tumor response rates were 16.1 % (95% CI, 11.1% to 22.3%) for IRINOGEM and 4.4% (95% CI, 1.9% to 8.6%) for GEM (χ2 P < .001). Median TTP was 3.5 months for IRINOGEM versus 3.0 months for GEM (log-rank P = .352). However, subset analyses in patients with locally advanced disease suggested a TTP advantage with IRINOGEM versus GEM (median, 7.7 v 3.9 months). CA 19-9 progression was positively correlated with tumor progression. The incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was higher in the IRINOGEM group but grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities and quality-of-life outcomes were similar. Conclusion: IRINOGEM safely improved the tumor response rate compared with GEM but did not alter overall survival.

AB - Purpose: This phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the overall survival associated with irinotecan plus gemcitabine (IRINOGEM) versus gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in patients with chemotherapy-naive, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: IRINOGEM patients received starting doses of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 given weekly for 2 weeks every 3-week cycle. GEM patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (induction) and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was survival. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to tumor progression (TTP), changes in CA 19-9, and safety. Results: In each arm, 180 randomly assigned patients comprised the intent-to-treat population evaluated for efficacy; 173 IRINOGEM and 169 GEM patients were treated. Median survival times were 6.3 months for IRINOGEM (95% CI, 4.7 to 7.5 months) and 6.6 months for GEM (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.8 months; log-rank P = .789). Tumor response rates were 16.1 % (95% CI, 11.1% to 22.3%) for IRINOGEM and 4.4% (95% CI, 1.9% to 8.6%) for GEM (χ2 P < .001). Median TTP was 3.5 months for IRINOGEM versus 3.0 months for GEM (log-rank P = .352). However, subset analyses in patients with locally advanced disease suggested a TTP advantage with IRINOGEM versus GEM (median, 7.7 v 3.9 months). CA 19-9 progression was positively correlated with tumor progression. The incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was higher in the IRINOGEM group but grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities and quality-of-life outcomes were similar. Conclusion: IRINOGEM safely improved the tumor response rate compared with GEM but did not alter overall survival.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4644327989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4644327989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2004.12.082

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2004.12.082

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 3776

EP - 3783

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 18

ER -