Combining Gemcitabine and Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Biliary Cancer: A Phase II Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Biliary cancer has a poor prognosis, and chemotherapy has had little impact. The objectives of this trial were to determine the response rate, time to disease progression, survival, and safety profile of the combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) in patients with advanced biliary cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had pathologically proven, locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma arising from the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts or gallbladder with no prior chemotherapy. Patients were treated on a 3-week cycle consisting of capecitabine at 650 mg/m(2) orally twice a day for 14 days and gemcitabine at a fixed dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled between July 2001 and January 2004. Fifty-three percent of patients had cholangiocarcinoma, 47% had gallbladder cancer, and 89% had metastatic disease. The overall objective response rate was 31%, with an additional 42% of patients with stable disease, for a disease control rate of 73%. The median overall survival time was 14 months (95% CI, 7.3 months to not available), and the median progression-free survival time was 7 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 11.8 months). This chemotherapy combination was generally well tolerated. Transient neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome were commonly observed but were easily managed without discontinuing further treatment. CONCLUSION: The significant antitumor activity combined with a mild toxicity profile seen in this study argue that GemCap chemotherapy may benefit patients with advanced biliary cancer. This regimen warrants further evaluation in a randomized study with survival and quality of life end points.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".