001     126129
005     20240228140809.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.010
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:25459392
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a 0014-2964
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 0959-8049
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1879-0852
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1879-2995
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a altmetric:2858129
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2017-02244
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Bergmann, L.
|b 0
245 _ _ |a A prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer: a study of the CESAR Central European Society for Anticancer Drug Research-EWIV.
260 _ _ |a Amsterdam [u.a.]
|c 2015
|b Elsevier
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1521108104_2344
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most common malignant tumours and is still associated with a poor prognosis in advanced disease. To improve the standard therapy with gemcitabine, we initiated a prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine (GEM) versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib (SUNGEM) based on data of in vitro trials and phase-I data for the combination treatment. The rational of adding sunitinib was its putative antiangiogenic mechanism of action.A total of 106 eligible patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic PDAC without previous system therapy were randomised to receive GEM at a dosage of 1.000mg/m(2) d1, 8, 15 q28 versus a combination of SUNGEM at a dosage of GEM 1.000mg/m(2) d1+8 and sunitinib 50mg p.o. d1-14, q21d. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), toxicity and overall response rate (ORR).The confirmatory analysis of PFS was based on the intend-to-treat (ITT) population (N=106). The median PFS was 13.3 weeks (95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 10.4-18.1 weeks) for GEM and 11.6 weeks for SUNGEM (95%-CI: 7.0-18.0 weeks; p=0.78 one-sided log-rank). The ORR was 6.1% (95%-CI: 0.7-20.2%) for GEM and for 7.1% (95%-CI: 0.9-23.5%) for SUNGEM (p=0.87). The median time to progression (TTP) was 14.0 weeks (95%-CI: 12.4-22.3 weeks) for GEM and 18.0 weeks (95%-CI: 11.3-19.3 weeks) for SUNGEM (p=0.60; two-sided log-rank). The median OS was 36.7 weeks (95%-CI: 20.6-49.0 weeks) for the GEM arm and 30.4 weeks (95%-CI: 18.1-37.6 weeks) for the SUNGEM (p=0.78, one-sided log-rank). In regard to toxicities, suspected SAEs were reported in 53.7% in the GEM arm and 71.2% in the SUNGEM arm. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was statistically significantly higher in the SUNGEM arm with 48.1% versus 27.8% in the GEM arm (p=0.045, two sided log-rank).The combination SUNGEM was not sufficient superior in locally advanced or metastatic PDAC compared to GEM alone in regard to efficacy but was associated with more toxicity.
536 _ _ |a 313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313
|c POF3-313
|f POF III
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
650 _ 7 |a Antineoplastic Agents
|2 NLM Chemicals
650 _ 7 |a Indoles
|2 NLM Chemicals
650 _ 7 |a Pyrroles
|2 NLM Chemicals
650 _ 7 |a Deoxycytidine
|0 0W860991D6
|2 NLM Chemicals
650 _ 7 |a gemcitabine
|0 B76N6SBZ8R
|2 NLM Chemicals
650 _ 7 |a sunitinib
|0 V99T50803M
|2 NLM Chemicals
700 1 _ |a Maute, L.
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Heil, G.
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Rüssel, J.
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Weidmann, E.
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Köberle, D.
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Fuxius, S.
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Weigang-Köhler, K.
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Aulitzky, W. E.
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Wörmann, B.
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Hartung, G.
|b 10
700 1 _ |a Moritz, B.
|b 11
700 1 _ |a Edler, L.
|0 P:(DE-He78)621efe295db6fdfa7f9f95011a5ea943
|b 12
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Burkholder, I.
|b 13
700 1 _ |a Scheulen, M. E.
|b 14
700 1 _ |a Richly, H.
|b 15
773 _ _ |a 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.010
|g Vol. 51, no. 1, p. 27 - 36
|0 PERI:(DE-600)1468190-0
|n 1
|p 27 - 36
|t European journal of cancer
|v 51
|y 2015
|x 0959-8049
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:126129
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 12
|6 P:(DE-He78)621efe295db6fdfa7f9f95011a5ea943
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300
|v Cancer risk factors and prevention
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|b Gesundheit
914 1 _ |y 2015
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0310
|2 StatID
|b NCBI Molecular Biology Database
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b EUR J CANCER : 2015
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0110
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1030
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Life Sciences
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
915 _ _ |a IF >= 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9905
|2 StatID
|b EUR J CANCER : 2015
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
|k C060
|l Biostatistik
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21