Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Stephen Falk
Based on 7 articles published since 2010
(Why 7 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, S. Falk wrote the following 7 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Review Role of chemoradiotherapy in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings for resectable pancreatic cancer. 2014

Sen, N / Falk, S / Abrams, R A. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, USA. Electronic address: Neilayan_Sen@rush.edu. · Department of Oncology, Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, UK. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, USA. ·Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) · Pubmed #25024090.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is the 10th most commonly diagnosed malignancy in the USA and the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death. Worldwide, the mortality incidence ratio approaches 98%. Although only 15-20% of patients present with resectable disease, there is international consensus that complete surgical resection (R0, i.e. grossly and microscopically negative margins) is a vital part of any curative treatment paradigm. Despite advances in surgical technique, peri-operative care, chemotherapy and radiation delivery techniques over the past two decades, 5 year overall survival rates for resected pancreatic cancer with modern therapies remain around 20-25%. There is level I evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy in fully resected pancreatic cancer, but randomised trials examining the role of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy to date do not provide clear support for radiation therapy in this setting. In addition, efforts to increase the proportion of long-term survivors have recently centred on increasing the resectability of locoregional disease by incorporating neoadjuvant treatment before definitive surgery. Post-hoc analysis of randomised data as well as retrospective reviews have shown that there are several independent prognostic factors that may have considerable impact on survival outcomes, complicating interpretation and comparison of historical data. There is considerable interest in adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, but there is significant controversy as to whether radiation is of value, especially in the adjuvant context. Herein, we explore the sources of those controversies.

2 Clinical Trial Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCALOP: a phase II randomised trial of gemcitabine- or capecitabine-based chemoradiation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. 2017

Hurt, C N / Falk, S / Crosby, T / McDonald, A / Ray, R / Joseph, G / Staffurth, J / Abrams, R A / Griffiths, G / Maughan, T / Mukherjee, S. ·Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, 6th Floor, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol BS2 8ED, UK. · Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Velindre Road, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK. · Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow G12 0YN, UK. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S. Paulina, 013 Atrium Building, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. · Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. · CRUK MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology Gray Laboratories, Oxford University, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #28376080.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: SCALOP, a randomised, phase II trial, tested the activity and safety of gemcitabine (GEM)-based and capecitabine (CAP)-based chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Here we present the long-term outcomes. METHODS: Eligibility: histologically proven LAPC ⩽7 cm. Following 12 weeks of induction GEMCAP chemotherapy (three cycles: GEM 1000 mg m RESULTS: One-hundred fourteen patients (28 UK centres) were registered between 24 December 2009 and 25 October 2011, and 74 were randomised (CAP-RT=36; GEM-RT=38). At the time of this analysis, 105 of the 114 patients had died and the surviving 9 patients had been followed up for a median of 10.9 months (IQR: 2.9-18.7). Updated median OS was 17.6 months (95% CI: 14.6-22.7) in the CAP-CRT arm and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.1-16.0) in the GEM-CRT arm (intention-to-treat adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.68 (95% CI: 0.38-1.21, P=0.185)); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.0 months (95% CI: 10.0-15.2) in the CAP-CRT arm and 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-12.7) in the GEM-CRT arm (intention-to-treat adjusted HR: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.32-1.14, P=0.120)). In baseline multivariable model, age ⩾65 years, better performance status, CA19.9<613 IU l CONCLUSIONS: CAP-CRT remains the superior regimen. SCALOP showed that patients with CA19.9 <46 IU ml

3 Clinical Trial Vandetanib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma (ViP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial. 2017

Middleton, Gary / Palmer, Daniel H / Greenhalf, William / Ghaneh, Paula / Jackson, Richard / Cox, Trevor / Evans, Anthony / Shaw, Victoria E / Wadsley, Jonathan / Valle, Juan W / Propper, David / Wasan, Harpreet / Falk, Stephen / Cunningham, David / Coxon, Fareeda / Ross, Paul / Madhusudan, Srinivasan / Wadd, Nick / Corrie, Pippa / Hickish, Tamas / Costello, Eithne / Campbell, Fiona / Rawcliffe, Charlotte / Neoptolemos, John P. ·University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and LCTU-GCPLabs, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Wirral, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and LCTU-GCPLabs, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. · Division of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Centre for Cancer and Inflammation, Barts Cancer Institute, London, UK. · Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. · Royal Marsden, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. · James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesborough, UK. · Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. · Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and LCTU-GCPLabs, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28259610.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m FINDINGS: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ INTERPRETATION: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

4 Clinical Trial Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2017

Neoptolemos, John P / Palmer, Daniel H / Ghaneh, Paula / Psarelli, Eftychia E / Valle, Juan W / Halloran, Christopher M / Faluyi, Olusola / O'Reilly, Derek A / Cunningham, David / Wadsley, Jonathan / Darby, Suzanne / Meyer, Tim / Gillmore, Roopinder / Anthoney, Alan / Lind, Pehr / Glimelius, Bengt / Falk, Stephen / Izbicki, Jakob R / Middleton, Gary William / Cummins, Sebastian / Ross, Paul J / Wasan, Harpreet / McDonald, Alec / Crosby, Tom / Ma, Yuk Ting / Patel, Kinnari / Sherriff, David / Soomal, Rubin / Borg, David / Sothi, Sharmila / Hammel, Pascal / Hackert, Thilo / Jackson, Richard / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous3241111. ·University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk. · University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK. · The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. · University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · University of Manchester/The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. · The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK. · Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK. · Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK. · Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. · St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. · Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Clinical Research Sörmland, Eskilstuna, Sweden. · University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, UK. · University of Hamburg Medical institutions UKE, Hamburg, Germany. · Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK. · Guy's Hospital, London, UK. · Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK. · The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK. · Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK. · Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. · Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK. · Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK. · Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, UK. · Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. · University Hospital Coventry, Coventry, UK. · Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France. · University of Heidelberg, Germany. ·Lancet · Pubmed #28129987.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m FINDINGS: Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5-31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7-27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3-4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3-4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. INTERPRETATION: The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

5 Clinical Trial Health-Related Quality of Life in SCALOP, a Randomized Phase 2 Trial Comparing Chemoradiation Therapy Regimens in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. 2015

Hurt, Christopher N / Mukherjee, Somnath / Bridgewater, John / Falk, Stephen / Crosby, Tom / McDonald, Alec / Joseph, George / Staffurth, John / Abrams, Ross A / Blazeby, Jane M / Bridges, Sarah / Dutton, Peter / Griffiths, Gareth / Maughan, Tim / Johnson, Colin. ·Wales Cancer Trials Unit, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. Electronic address: hurtcn@cardiff.ac.uk. · Cancer Research UK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Oxford University, NIHR Biomedical Research, Oxford, United Kingdom. · UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, United Kingdom. · Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. · Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom. · Institute of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. · Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol and School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. · Wales Cancer Trials Unit, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. · Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. · Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Southampton University, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. · University Surgical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. ·Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys · Pubmed #26530749.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) provides survival benefits but may result in considerable toxicity. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) measurements during CRT have not been widely reported. This paper reports HRQL data from the Selective Chemoradiation in Advanced Localised Pancreatic Cancer (SCALOP) trial, including validation of the QLQ-PAN26 tool in CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, nonmetastatic carcinoma of the pancreas were eligible. Following 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP) chemotherapy, patients with stable and responding disease were randomized to a further cycle of GEMCAP followed by capecitabine- or gemcitabine-based CRT. HRQL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Pancreatic Cancer module (PAN26). RESULTS: A total of 114 patients from 28 UK centers were registered and 74 patients randomized. There was improvement in the majority of HRQL scales during induction chemotherapy. Patients with significant deterioration in fatigue, appetite loss, and gastrointestinal symptoms during CRT recovered within 3 weeks following CRT. Differences in changes in HRQL scores between trial arms rarely reached statistical significance; however, where they did, they favored capecitabine therapy. PAN26 scales had good internal consistency and were able to distinguish between subgroups of patients experiencing toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is deterioration in HRQL following CRT, this resolves within 3 weeks. HRQL data support the use of capecitabine- over gemcitabine-based chemoradiation. The QLQ-PAN26 is a reliable and valid tool for use in patients receiving CRT.

6 Clinical Trial Gemcitabine and capecitabine with or without telomerase peptide vaccine GV1001 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (TeloVac): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2014

Middleton, Gary / Silcocks, Paul / Cox, Trevor / Valle, Juan / Wadsley, Jonathan / Propper, David / Coxon, Fareeda / Ross, Paul / Madhusudan, Srinivasan / Roques, Tom / Cunningham, David / Falk, Stephen / Wadd, Nick / Harrison, Mark / Corrie, Pippa / Iveson, Tim / Robinson, Angus / McAdam, Karen / Eatock, Martin / Evans, Jeff / Archer, Caroline / Hickish, Tamas / Garcia-Alonso, Angel / Nicolson, Marianne / Steward, William / Anthoney, Alan / Greenhalf, William / Shaw, Victoria / Costello, Eithne / Naisbitt, Dean / Rawcliffe, Charlotte / Nanson, Gemma / Neoptolemos, John. ·University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and GCLP Facility, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester UK. · Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. · St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, West Smithfield, London, UK. · Northern Centre for Cancer Care, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. · Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK. · The Royal Marsden, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Bristol Haematology And Oncology Centre, University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. · The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middleborough, UK. · Mount Vernon Hospital, The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northwood, UK. · Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. · Southampton General Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK. · Conquest Hospital, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, The Ridge, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, UK. · Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Edith, Cavell Campus, Peterborough, UK. · Belfast City Hospital, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK. · University of Glasgow, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK. · Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Cosham, Portsmouth, UK. · Royal Bournemouth Hospital, The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth, UK. · Glan Clwyd Hospital, University Health Board, Rhyl, Denbighshire, UK. · Abderdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK. · Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK. · St James University Hospital, The Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and GCLP Facility, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #24954781.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. FINDINGS: The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

7 Clinical Trial Gemcitabine-based or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial. 2013

Mukherjee, Somnath / Hurt, Christopher N / Bridgewater, John / Falk, Stephen / Cummins, Sebastian / Wasan, Harpreet / Crosby, Tom / Jephcott, Catherine / Roy, Rajarshi / Radhakrishna, Ganesh / McDonald, Alec / Ray, Ruby / Joseph, George / Staffurth, John / Abrams, Ross A / Griffiths, Gareth / Maughan, Tim. ·Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK. somnath.mukherjee@oncology.ox.ac.uk ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #23474363.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2) once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987. FINDINGS: 114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6-73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4-63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9-19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0-15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18-0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1-89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4-77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2-14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9-12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32-1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.