Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Bengt Glimelius
Based on 16 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, B. Glimelius wrote the following 16 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Consensus statement on mandatory measurements in pancreatic cancer trials (COMM-PACT) for systemic treatment of unresectable disease. 2018

Ter Veer, Emil / van Rijssen, L Bengt / Besselink, Marc G / Mali, Rosa M A / Berlin, Jordan D / Boeck, Stefan / Bonnetain, Franck / Chau, Ian / Conroy, Thierry / Van Cutsem, Eric / Deplanque, Gael / Friess, Helmut / Glimelius, Bengt / Goldstein, David / Herrmann, Richard / Labianca, Roberto / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Macarulla, Teresa / van der Meer, Jonathan H M / Neoptolemos, John P / Okusaka, Takuji / O'Reilly, Eileen M / Pelzer, Uwe / Philip, Philip A / van der Poel, Marcel J / Reni, Michele / Scheithauer, Werner / Siveke, Jens T / Verslype, Chris / Busch, Olivier R / Wilmink, Johanna W / van Oijen, Martijn G H / van Laarhoven, Hanneke W M. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. · Department of Internal Medicine III, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Klinikum Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France. · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine and Lorraine University, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. · Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Oncology, Hôpital Riviera-Chablais, Vevey, Switzerland. · Department of Surgery, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. · Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Nelune Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. · Cancer Center, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (HUVH), Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, West German Cancer Cancer, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: h.vanlaarhoven@amc.uva.nl. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29508762.

ABSTRACT: Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.

2 Guideline Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials). 2014

Bonnetain, Franck / Bonsing, Bert / Conroy, Thierry / Dousseau, Adelaide / Glimelius, Bengt / Haustermans, Karin / Lacaine, François / Van Laethem, Jean Luc / Aparicio, Thomas / Aust, Daniela / Bassi, Claudio / Berger, Virginie / Chamorey, Emmanuel / Chibaudel, Benoist / Dahan, Laeticia / De Gramont, Aimery / Delpero, Jean Robert / Dervenis, Christos / Ducreux, Michel / Gal, Jocelyn / Gerber, Erich / Ghaneh, Paula / Hammel, Pascal / Hendlisz, Alain / Jooste, Valérie / Labianca, Roberto / Latouche, Aurelien / Lutz, Manfred / Macarulla, Teresa / Malka, David / Mauer, Muriel / Mitry, Emmanuel / Neoptolemos, John / Pessaux, Patrick / Sauvanet, Alain / Tabernero, Josep / Taieb, Julien / van Tienhoven, Geertjan / Gourgou-Bourgade, Sophie / Bellera, Carine / Mathoulin-Pélissier, Simone / Collette, Laurence. ·Methodology and Quality of Life Unit in Cancer, EA 3181, University Hospital of Besançon and CTD-INCa Gercor, UNICNCER GERICO, Besançon, France. Electronic address: franck.bonnetain@univ-fcomte.fr. · Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France. · Bordeaux Segalen University & CHRU, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium. · Digestive Surgical Department, Tenon hospital, Paris, France. · Gastro Intestinal Cancer Unit Erasme Hospital Brussels, Belgium. · Gastroenterology Department, Avicenne Hospital, Paris 13, Bobigny, France. · Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav-Carus, Dresden, Germany. · Surgical and Gastroenterological Department, Endocrine and Pancreatic Unit, Hospital of 'G.B.Rossi', University of Verona, Italy. · Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest - Centre Paul Papin Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer (CLCC), Angers, France. · Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Oncology Department, Hôpital Saint-Antoine & CTD-INCa GERCOR, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, UPMC Paris VI, Paris, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Hopital la Timone, Assitance publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Gastroenterology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Biostatistician, Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Institut fuer Radioonkologie, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Royal Liverpool Hospital, United Kingdom. · Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Digestive Oncology and Gastro-enterology Department, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. · Digestive Cancer Registry, INSERM U866, Dijon, France. · Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Bergamo, Bergame, Italy. · Inserm, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Biostatistics Team, Villejuif, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Caritas Hospital, Saarbrücken, Germany. · Department of the Gastrointestinal Tumors and Phase I Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. · Statistics Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Hôpital René Huguenin, Saint-Cloud, France. · Division of Surgery and Oncology at the University of Liverpool and Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Universitu Hospital Strasbourg, France. · Department of Hepato-pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Department of Hepato-gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Georges Pompidou European hospital, Paris, France. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Institut Du Cancer de Montpellier, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, and Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Montpellier, France. · Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit, Institut Bergonie, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France; Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique - Épidémiologie Clinique CIC-EC 7, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #25256896.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.

3 Editorial Any progress in pancreatic cancer? 2016

Glimelius, Bengt. ·a Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology , Uppsala University , Uppsala , Sweden. ·Acta Oncol · Pubmed #26883020.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

4 Editorial Any progress in pancreatic cancer? Well, but progress for Acta Oncologica. 2010

Glimelius, Bengt. · ·Acta Oncol · Pubmed #20397771.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

5 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 / Anonymous631236. ·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.

6 Clinical Trial Prognostic nomogram and score to predict overall survival in locally advanced untreated pancreatic cancer (PROLAP). 2016

Vernerey, Dewi / Huguet, Florence / Vienot, Angélique / Goldstein, David / Paget-Bailly, Sophie / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Glimelius, Bengt / Artru, Pascal / Moore, Malcolm J / André, Thierry / Mineur, Laurent / Chibaudel, Benoist / Benetkiewicz, Magdalena / Louvet, Christophe / Hammel, Pascal / Bonnetain, Franck. ·Methodological and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, EA 3181, University Hospital of Besançon, 3 Boulevard Alexandre Fleming, Besançon 25030, France. · Oncology Multidisciplinary Research Group (GERCOR), 151 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, Paris 75011, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Tenon Hospital (AP-HP), 4 rue de la Chine, Paris 75020, France. · Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Besançon, 3 Boulevard Alexandre Fleming, Besançon 25030, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales hospital and Prince of Wales Clinical school, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales 2031, Australia. · AGITG (Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group), 119-143 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, New South Wales 2050, Australia. · Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels 1070, Belgium. · Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, University of Uppsala, Uppsala 75105, Sweden. · Department of Gastroenterology, Jean Mermoz Hospital, 55 avenue Mermoz, Lyon 69008, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada. · Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Antoine Hospital (AP-HP), 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, Paris 75011, France. · Department of Radiotherapy and Medical Oncology, Sainte-Catherine Institute, 250 Chemin de Baigne Pieds, Avignon 84918, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Hospital Institute, 3 Rue Barbès, Levallois-Perret 92300, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, Paris 75014, France. · Department of Digestive Oncology, Beaujon Hospital (AP-HP), 100 boulevard du General Leclerc, Clichy 92110, France. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #27404456.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients remains controversial. Better discrimination for overall survival (OS) at diagnosis is needed. We address this issue by developing and validating a prognostic nomogram and a score for OS in LAPC (PROLAP). METHODS: Analyses were derived from 442 LAPC patients enrolled in the LAP07 trial. The prognostic ability of 30 baseline parameters was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Performance assessment and internal validation of the final model were done with Harrell's C-index, calibration plot and bootstrap sample procedures. On the basis of the final model, a prognostic nomogram and a score were developed, and externally validated in 106 consecutive LAPC patients treated in Besançon Hospital, France. RESULTS: Age, pain, tumour size, albumin and CA 19-9 were independent prognostic factors for OS. The final model had good calibration, acceptable discrimination (C-index=0.60) and robust internal validity. The PROLAP score has the potential to delineate three different prognosis groups with median OS of 15.4, 11.7 and 8.5 months (log-rank P<0.0001). The score ability to discriminate OS was externally confirmed in 63 (59%) patients with complete clinical data derived from a data set of 106 consecutive LAPC patients; median OS of 18.3, 14.1 and 7.6 months for the three groups (log-rank P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The PROLAP nomogram and score can accurately predict OS before initiation of induction chemotherapy in LAPC-untreated patients. They may help to optimise clinical trials design and might offer the opportunity to define risk-adapted strategies for LAPC management in the future.

7 Clinical Trial Effect of Chemoradiotherapy vs Chemotherapy on Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Controlled After 4 Months of Gemcitabine With or Without Erlotinib: The LAP07 Randomized Clinical Trial. 2016

Hammel, Pascal / Huguet, Florence / van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Goldstein, David / Glimelius, Bengt / Artru, Pascal / Borbath, Ivan / Bouché, Olivier / Shannon, Jenny / André, Thierry / Mineur, Laurent / Chibaudel, Benoist / Bonnetain, Franck / Louvet, Christophe / Anonymous6180866. ·Department of Digestive Oncology, Beaujon Hospital (AP-HP), Clichy, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Tenon Hospital (AP-HP), Paris, France. · Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia5Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG), Camperdown, Australia6Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Radiology, Oncology, and Radiation Science, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Gastroenterology, Jean Mermoz Hospital, Lyon, France. · Department of Gastroenterology, Saint-Luc University Clinics, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Gastroenterology, Robert Debré Hospital, Reims, France. · Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG), Camperdown, Australia6Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia11Department of Medical Oncology, Nepean Hospital NSW, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Antoine Hospital (AP-HP), Paris, France. · Department of Radiotherapy and Medical Oncology, Sainte-Catherine Institute, Avignon, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Hospital Institute, Levallois-Perret, France15Oncology Multidisciplinary Research Group (GERCOR), Paris, France. · Department of Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology, Hospital Minjoz, Besançon, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France. ·JAMA · Pubmed #27139057.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE: In locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the role of chemoradiotherapy is controversial and the efficacy of erlotinib is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and to assess the effect of erlotinib on survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In LAP07, an international, open-label, phase 3 randomized trial, 449 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011. Follow-up ended in February 2013. INTERVENTIONS: In the first randomization, 223 patients received 1000 mg/m2 weekly of gemcitabine alone and 219 patients received 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine plus 100 mg/d of erlotinib. In the second randomization involving patients with progression-free disease after 4 months, 136 patients received 2 months of the same chemotherapy and 133 underwent chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy plus capecitabine). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival from the date of the first randomization. Secondary outcomes were the effect of erlotinib and quality assurance of radiotherapy on overall survival, progression-free survival of gemcitabine-erlotinib and erlotinib maintenance with gemcitabine alone at the second randomization, and toxic effects. RESULTS: A total of 442 of the 449 patients (232 men; median age, 63.3 years) enrolled underwent the first randomization. Of these, 269 underwent the second randomization. Interim analysis was performed when 221 patients died (109 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 112 in the chemotherapy group), reaching the early stopping boundaries for futility. With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, the median overall survival from the date of the first randomization was not significantly different between chemotherapy at 16.5 months (95% CI, 14.5-18.5 months) and chemoradiotherapy at 15.2 months (95% CI, 13.9-17.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.34; P = .83). Median overall survival from the date of the first randomization for the 223 patients receiving gemcitabine was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-15.3 months) and was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.4-13.5 months) for the 219 patients receiving gemcitabine plus erlotinib (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45; P = .09; 188 deaths vs 191 deaths). Chemoradiotherapy was associated with decreased local progression (32% vs 46%, P = .03) and no increase in grade 3 to 4 toxicity, except for nausea. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this open-label, randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and there was no significant difference in overall survival with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine plus erlotinib used as maintenance therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00634725.

8 Clinical Trial Clinical benefit response in pancreatic cancer trials revisited. 2014

Bernhard, Jürg / Dietrich, Daniel / Glimelius, Bengt / Bodoky, György / Scheithauer, Werner / Herrmann, Richard. ·SAKK Coordinating Center, Bern, Switzerland. ·Oncol Res Treat · Pubmed #24613908.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Clinical benefit response (CBR), based on changes in pain, Karnofsky performance status, and weight, is an established palliative endpoint in trials for advanced gastrointestinal cancer. We investigated whether CBR is associated with survival, and whether CBR reflects a wide-enough range of domains to adequately capture patients' perception. METHODS: CBR was prospectively evaluated in an international phase III chemotherapy trial in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (n = 311) in parallel with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: The median time to treatment failure was 3.4 months (range: 0-6). The majority of the CBRs (n = 39) were noted in patients who received chemotherapy for at least 5 months. Patients with CBR (n = 62) had longer survival than non-responders (n = 182) (hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.94; p = 0.013). CBR was predicted with a sensitivity and specificity of 77-80% by various combinations of 3 mainly physical PROs. A comparison between the duration of CBR (n = 62, median = 8 months, range = 4-31) and clinically meaningful improvements in the PROs (n = 100-116; medians = 9-11 months, range = 4-24) showed similar intervals. CONCLUSION: CBR is associated with survival and mainly reflects physical domains. Within phase III chemotherapy trials for advanced gastrointestinal cancer, CBR can be replaced by a PRO evaluation, without losing substantial information but gaining complementary information.

9 Clinical Trial Multicentre phase I-II trial of capecitabine and oxaliplatin in combination with radiotherapy for unresectable pancreatic and biliary tract cancer: The CORGI-U study. 2010

Gunnlaugsson, Adalsteinn / Anderson, Harald / Lind, Pehr / Glimelius, Bengt / Johnsson, Anders. ·Department of Oncology, Lund University, Lund 22185, Sweden. adalsteinn.gunnlaugsson@skane.se ·Radiother Oncol · Pubmed #20451275.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In this multicentre phase I-II trial we evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of capecitabine and oxaliplatin followed by the combination of these two drugs with radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic or biliary tract cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with inextirpable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, gallbladder or extrahepatic bile ducts were included. Two cycles of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) bid d1-14+oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) d1, q3w) were followed by XELOX-RT (radiotherapy (50.4 Gy), combined with capecitabine 750-675 mg/m(2) bid every radiotherapy day and oxaliplatin 40-30 mg/m(2) once weekly). Primary end-points were tolerance (phase I) and objective response (phase II). RESULTS: The maximum tolerated doses of oxaliplatin and capecitabine to combine with irradiation were 30 mg/m(2) and 675 mg/m(2), respectively. Twenty-one percent (95% CI: 9-38%) of evaluable patients achieved partial response. Five patients went through surgery (three R0 resections). Two-year survival was 28%, and estimated local tumour control rate at 2 years was 72%. The most common grade 3-4 toxicity was nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: XELOX-RT (30 mg/m(2) oxaliplatin/675 mg/m(2) capecitabine in combination with 50.4Gy/28 fractions) was well tolerated and effective for locally advanced pancreatic and biliary tract cancer.

10 Clinical Trial An explorative randomised phase II study of sequential chemotherapy in advanced upper gastrointestinal cancer. 2010

Berglund, Ake / Byström, Per / Johansson, Birgitta / Nygren, Peter / Frödin, Jan-Erik / Pedersen, Dorte / Letocha, Henry / Glimelius, Bengt. ·Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Akademiska sjukhuset, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden. ·Med Oncol · Pubmed #19212708.

ABSTRACT: The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of planned sequential administration of docetaxel and irinotecan with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin in advanced upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma (UGIA) are unknown. Seventy-three patients with gastric (GC; n = 22), pancreatic (PC; n = 28) or biliary cancer (BC; n = 23) were randomised to start with 45 mg/m(2) docetaxel or 180 mg/m(2) irinotecan combined with 5-FU/leucovorin every 2nd week. After every 2nd course, the patients were crossed over to the other combination. Treatment was given for a maximum of 12 courses. Quality-of-life (QoL) was evaluated during the first two months using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eighteen patients (25%; GC 32%, PC 21%, BC 22%) demonstrated partial response (PR) and 21 (29%) had prolonged stable disease. Mean QoL scores were low at baseline. Twenty-three (32%) patients had improved QoL using a summary measure and 13 were stable. Median time to progression was 4.4 months and overall survival 8.2 months. The treatments were reasonably well tolerated. Grade 3-4 toxicities were slightly more common for the docetaxel combination. There were two treatment-related deaths. Planned sequential treatment with docetaxel or irinotecan with 5-FU/leucovorin is feasible, reasonably tolerable and appears active in advanced UGIA.

11 Clinical Trial Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001. 2008

Bernhard, Jürg / Dietrich, Daniel / Scheithauer, Werner / Gerber, Daniela / Bodoky, György / Ruhstaller, Thomas / Glimelius, Bengt / Bajetta, Emilio / Schüller, Johannes / Saletti, Piercarlo / Bauer, Jean / Figer, Arie / Pestalozzi, Bernhard C / Köhne, Claus-Henning / Mingrone, Walter / Stemmer, Salomon M / Tàmas, Karin / Kornek, Gabriela V / Koeberle, Dieter / Herrmann, Richard / Anonymous7470604. ·Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research Coordinating Center, Bern, Switzerland. juerg.bernhard@ibcsg.org ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #18669454.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

12 Article Intratumoural expression of deoxycytidylate deaminase or ribonuceotide reductase subunit M1 expression are not related to survival in patients with resected pancreatic cancer given adjuvant chemotherapy. 2018

Elander, N O / Aughton, K / Ghaneh, P / Neoptolemos, J P / Palmer, D H / Cox, T F / Campbell, F / Costello, E / Halloran, C M / Mackey, J R / Scarfe, A G / Valle, J W / McDonald, A C / Carter, R / Tebbutt, N C / Goldstein, D / Shannon, J / Dervenis, C / Glimelius, B / Deakin, M / Charnley, R M / Anthoney, A / Lerch, M M / Mayerle, J / Oláh, A / Büchler, M W / Greenhalf, W / Anonymous1351258. ·Cancer Research U.K. Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. · University of Manchester/The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK. · Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK. · Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. · Prince of Wales hospital and Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Nepean Cancer Centre and University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. · The Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · University Hospital, North Staffordshire, Staffordshire, UK. · Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. · Department of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. · Department of Medicine II, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. · The Petz Aladar Hospital, Gyor, Hungary. · Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Cancer Research U.K. Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. greenhaf@liv.ac.uk. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #29523831.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Deoxycytidylate deaminase (DCTD) and ribonucleotide reductase subunit M1 (RRM1) are potential prognostic and predictive biomarkers for pyrimidine-based chemotherapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining of DCTD and RRM1 was performed on tissue microarrays representing tumour samples from 303 patients in European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-randomised adjuvant trials following pancreatic resection, 272 of whom had received gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil with folinic acid in ESPAC-3(v2), and 31 patients from the combined ESPAC-3(v1) and ESPAC-1 post-operative pure observational groups. RESULTS: Neither log-rank testing on dichotomised strata or Cox proportional hazard regression showed any relationship of DCTD or RRM1 expression levels to survival overall or by treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Expression of either DCTD or RRM1 was not prognostic or predictive in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had had post-operative chemotherapy with either gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil with folinic acid.

13 Article Expression of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) and hENT1 predicts survival in pancreatic cancer. 2018

Elander, N O / Aughton, K / Ghaneh, P / Neoptolemos, J P / Palmer, D H / Cox, T F / Campbell, F / Costello, E / Halloran, C M / Mackey, J R / Scarfe, A G / Valle, J W / McDonald, A C / Carter, R / Tebbutt, N C / Goldstein, D / Shannon, J / Dervenis, C / Glimelius, B / Deakin, M / Charnley, R M / Anthoney, Alan / Lerch, M M / Mayerle, J / Oláh, A / Büchler, M W / Greenhalf, W / Anonymous1151214. ·From the Cancer Research U.K. Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · The Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada. · University of Manchester/The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. · Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. · Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. · Prince of Wales hospital and Clinical School University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia. · Nepean Cancer Centre and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. · The Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · University Hospital, North Staffordshire, UK. · Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. · Department of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. · Department of Medicine II, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. · The Petz Aladar Hospital, Gyor, Hungary. · From the Cancer Research U.K. Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. greenhaf@liv.ac.uk. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #29515256.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) tumour expression may provide added value to human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) tumour expression in predicting survival following pyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: DPD and hENT1 immunohistochemistry and scoring was completed on tumour cores from 238 patients with pancreatic cancer in the ESPAC-3(v2) trial, randomised to either postoperative gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5FU/FA). RESULTS: DPD tumour expression was associated with reduced overall survival (hazard ratio, HR = 1.73 [95% confidence interval, CI = 1.21-2.49], p = 0.003). This was significant in the 5FU/FA arm (HR = 2.07 [95% CI = 1.22-3.53], p = 0.007), but not in the gemcitabine arm (HR = 1.47 [0.91-3.37], p = 0.119). High hENT1 tumour expression was associated with increased survival in gemcitabine treated (HR = 0.56 [0.38-0.82], p = 0.003) but not in 5FU/FA treated patients (HR = 1.19 [0.80-1.78], p = 0.390). In patients with low hENT1 tumour expression, high DPD tumour expression was associated with a worse median [95% CI] survival in the 5FU/FA arm (9.7 [5.3-30.4] vs 29.2 [19.5-41.9] months, p = 0.002) but not in the gemcitabine arm (14.0 [9.1-15.7] vs. 18.0 [7.6-15.3] months, p = 1.000). The interaction of treatment arm and DPD expression was not significant (p = 0.303), but the interaction of treatment arm and hENT1 expression was (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: DPD tumour expression was a negative prognostic biomarker. Together with tumour expression of hENT1, DPD tumour expression defined patient subgroups that might benefit from either postoperative 5FU/FA or gemcitabine.

14 Article Pancreatic cancer hENT1 expression and survival from gemcitabine in patients from the ESPAC-3 trial. 2014

Greenhalf, William / Ghaneh, Paula / Neoptolemos, John P / Palmer, Daniel H / Cox, Trevor F / Lamb, Richard F / Garner, Elizabeth / Campbell, Fiona / Mackey, John R / Costello, Eithne / Moore, Malcolm J / Valle, Juan W / McDonald, Alexander C / Carter, Ross / Tebbutt, Niall C / Goldstein, David / Shannon, Jennifer / Dervenis, Christos / Glimelius, Bengt / Deakin, Mark / Charnley, Richard M / Lacaine, François / Scarfe, Andrew G / Middleton, Mark R / Anthoney, Alan / Halloran, Christopher M / Mayerle, Julia / Oláh, Attila / Jackson, Richard / Rawcliffe, Charlotte L / Scarpa, Aldo / Bassi, Claudio / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous5150777. ·Affiliations of authors: Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit, Liverpool Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK (WG, JPN, EG, TFC, PG, EC, CMH, CLR, FC, RJ) · the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada (MJM) · Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Christie NHS Foundation Trust, School of Cancer and Enabling Sciences, University of Manchester, UK (JWV) · Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK (DHP) · Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK (ACM) · Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK (RC) · Hôpital Tenon, Université, Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France (FL) · Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia (NCT) · Prince of Wales Hospital and Clinical School University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia (DG) · Nepean Cancer Centre and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (JS) · Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece (CD) · Medical Oncology, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Bebington, Merseyside, UK (DS) · Department of Oncology, Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden (BG) · University Hospital, North Staffordshire, UK (MD) · Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (RMC) · Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Viscérale, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France (FL) · Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada (JRM, AGS) · Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK (MRM) · St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK (AA) · Department of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany (JM) · Petz Aladar Hospital, Gyor, Hungary (AO) · Departments of Surgery and Pathology and ARC-NET Research Center, University of Verona, Italy (AS, CB) · Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany (MWB). ·J Natl Cancer Inst · Pubmed #24301456.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) levels in pancreatic adenocarcinoma may predict survival in patients who receive adjuvant gemcitabine after resection. METHODS: Microarrays from 434 patients randomized to chemotherapy in the ESPAC-3 trial (plus controls from ESPAC-1/3) were stained with the 10D7G2 anti-hENT1 antibody. Patients were classified as having high hENT1 expression if the mean H score for their cores was above the overall median H score (48). High and low hENT1-expressing groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty patients (87.6%) and 1808 cores were suitable and included in the final analysis. Median overall survival for gemcitabine-treated patients (n = 176) was 23.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3 to 26.0) months vs 23.5 (95% CI = 19.8 to 27.3) months for 176 patients treated with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (χ(2) 1=0.24; P = .62). Median survival for patients treated with gemcitabine was 17.1 (95% CI = 14.3 to 23.8) months for those with low hENT1 expression vs 26.2 (95% CI = 21.2 to 31.4) months for those with high hENT1 expression (χ(2)₁= 9.87; P = .002). For the 5-fluorouracil group, median survival was 25.6 (95% CI = 20.1 to 27.9) and 21.9 (95% CI = 16.0 to 28.3) months for those with low and high hENT1 expression, respectively (χ(2)₁ = 0.83; P = .36). hENT1 levels were not predictive of survival for the 28 patients of the observation group (χ(2)₁ = 0.37; P = .54). Multivariable analysis confirmed hENT1 expression as a predictive marker in gemcitabine-treated (Wald χ(2) = 9.16; P = .003) but not 5-fluorouracil-treated (Wald χ(2) = 1.22; P = .27) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Subject to prospective validation, gemcitabine should not be used for patients with low tumor hENT1 expression.

15 Article Estimating prognosis and palliation based on tumour marker CA 19-9 and quality of life indicators in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy. 2010

Bernhard, J / Dietrich, D / Glimelius, B / Hess, V / Bodoky, G / Scheithauer, W / Herrmann, R. ·SAKK Coordinating Center, Bern, Switzerland. juerg.bernhard@ibcsg.org ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #20877359.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To investigate the prognostic value of quality of life (QOL) relative to tumour marker carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, and the role of CA 19-9 in estimating palliation in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: CA 19-9 serum concentration was measured at baseline and every 3 weeks in a phase III trial (SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001). Patients scored QOL indicators at baseline, and before each administration of chemotherapy (weekly or bi-weekly) for 24 weeks or until progression. Prognostic factors were investigated by Cox models, QOL during chemotherapy by mixed-effect models. RESULTS: Patient-rated pain (P<0.02) and tiredness (P<0.03) were independent predictors for survival, although less prognostic than CA 19-9 (P<0.001). Baseline CA 19-9 did not predict QOL during chemotherapy, except for a marginal effect on pain (P<0.05). Mean changes in physical domains across the whole observation period were marginally correlated with the maximum CA 19-9 decrease. Patients in a better health status reported the most improvement in QOL within 20 days before maximum CA 19-9 decrease. They indicated substantially less pain and better physical well-being, already, early on during chemotherapy with a maximum CA 19-9 decrease of ≥50% vs <50%. CONCLUSION: In advanced pancreatic cancer, pain and tiredness are independent prognostic factors for survival, although less prognostic than CA 19-9. Quality of life improves before best CA 19-9 response but the maximum CA 19-9 decrease has no impact on subsequent QOL. To estimate palliation by chemotherapy, patient's perception needs to be taken into account.

16 Article CA 19-9 tumour-marker response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer enrolled in a randomised controlled trial. 2008

Hess, Viviane / Glimelius, Bengt / Grawe, Philipp / Dietrich, Daniel / Bodoky, György / Ruhstaller, Thomas / Bajetta, Emilio / Saletti, Piercarlo / Figer, Arie / Scheithauer, Werner / Herrmann, Richard. ·Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. vhess@uhbs.ch ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #18249033.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Several studies in patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic carcinoma have linked a decrease in the concentration of the tumour marker carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 to lengthened survival. The aim of this study was to test the hypotheses that an early decrease in baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration (on day 42, after two cycles of chemotherapy) by at least 50% is associated with lengthened survival, and that a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% from the baseline concentration to the lowest value measured at any time during treatment (nadir) is of prognostic significance, enabling its use as a surrogate endpoint for survival. METHODS: CA 19-9 serum concentration was measured at baseline and every 3 weeks thereafter in patients with histologically proven advanced pancreatic carcinoma enrolled in a randomised trial of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine. Patients were excluded if baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration was below the upper limit of normal (ULN) in the laboratory or if this measurement was missing. Comparisons of survival between patients with and without a CA 19-9 response were corrected for the guarantee-time bias by the landmark method. The trial on which this study is based is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00030732. FINDINGS: 247 of 319 randomised patients were assessable for analysis of baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration, and, of these, 175 patients were assessable for tumour-marker response to treatment. Median overall survival for patients with a baseline CA 19-9 concentration equal to or above the median value (ie, 59xULN) was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.1-7.0), which was significantly shorter than that for patients with baseline concentrations below the median value (10.3 months [95% CI 8.6-12.8], p<0.0001). An early decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% after two cycles of chemotherapy was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 10.1 months [9.2-12.7] vs 8.6 months [6.9-11.2], p=0.53; hazard ratio for death 1.11 [0.81-1.52]). Furthermore, a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% reached at the CA 19-9 nadir concentration was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with those patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 7.8 months [6.5.10.1] vs 6.7 months [5.5-9.8], p=0.74; 0.95 [0.69-1.31]) after adjusting for the guarantee-time bias. INTERPRETATION: Pretreatment serum CA 19-9 concentration is an independent prognostic factor for survival, but a decrease in concentration during chemotherapy is not significantly associated with lengthened survival compared with those who did not have a corresponding decrease. Our data suggest that CA 19-9 response during chemotherapy is not a valid surrogate endpoint for survival in clinical trials.