Efficacy and Safety of Fixed-Dose-Rate Infusions of Gemcitabine Plus Erlotinib for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose-rate infusions of gemcitabine in combination with erlotinib for advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods/Patients: Patients with locally advanced (LAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) without previous treatment for the advanced disease and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status received 1500 mg/m2 of gemcitabine in 150-minute infusions (10 mg/m2/minute) on days 1, 8 and 15 in 4-week cycles combined with 100 mg/day of oral erlotinib. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Sixty-two evaluable patients were enrolled (LAPC, n=16; MPC, n=46). Median OS was 10.0 (95% CI, 7.1-13.0) months. OS was longer in patients with LAPC (p=0.019), females (p=0.010) and patients not receiving opioids (p=0.027). A trend towards longer OS was shown in patients with grade rash (p=0.078). In multivariate analysis, only gender remained statistically significant (p=0.01). Median PFS was 4.9 (95% CI, 3.1-6.8) months, which was longer in patients with LAPC (p=0.004) and females (p=0.013). Overall response rate was 12.9% (95% CI, 4.7-21.3), with eight patients achieving partial response, and tumour growth control rate was 67.7% (95% CI, 79.3-56.1). The main grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (40.3%), asthenia (22.6%), anaemia (19.4%), thrombocytopenia (17.7%) and infections (14.5%). Three patients died due to septic shock, cholangitis or pulmonary embolism. Conclusions: The combination of fixed-dose-rate infusions of gemcitabine and erlotinib represents a feasible and active regimen for advanced pancreatic cancer with a manageable safety profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".