Table 2. Summary of meta-analyses on gemcitabine versus its combinations on overall survival of patients with advanced stage pancreatic cancer.
| Authors and reference | Year of publication | No. of patients | Arm | Overall survival |
|
| HR/RR/OR (95% CI) | P | ||||
| Sun et al.[56] | 2012 | 26 | GEM combination vs. GEM | 0.90 (0.82-0.99) | 0.040 |
| GEM + fluoropyrimidine vs. GEM | 0.95 (0.77-1.16) | 0.610 | |||
| GEM + camptothecin vs. GEM | 0.97 (0.76-1.25) | 0.840 | |||
| GEM + targeted therapy vs. GEM | 0.85 (0.73-1.00) | 0.050 | |||
| GEM + platinum vs. GEM | 0.91 (0.77-1.09) | 0.300 | |||
| Ciliberto et al.[57] | 2013 | 34 | GEM comination vs. GEM | 0.93 (0.85-0.97) | 0.001 |
| GEM + fluropyrimidines vs. GEM | 0.91 (0.84-0.99) | 0.455 | |||
| GEM +others (GEM+PEM, PEGF) vs. GEM | 0.87 (0.63-1.22) | 0.160 | |||
| GEM + platinum vs. GEM | 0.91 (0.82-1.01) | 0.985 | |||
| GEM + biotherapy vs. GEM | 0.94 (0.87-1.01) | 0.534 | |||
| GEM + irinotecan vs. GEM | 1.01 (0.83-1.22) | 0.687 | |||
| Eltawil et al.[58] | 2012 | 7 | GEM + molecular targeted agents vs. GEM | 0.94 (0.87-1.01) | 0.090 |
| Hu et al.[59] | 2011 | 35 | GEM vs. GEMCom | 1.15 | 0.011 |
| GEM vs. GEM + fluoropyrimidine | 1.331 (1.081-1.638) | 0.007 | |||
| GEM vs. GEM + platinum | 1.162 (0.981-1.376) | 0.082 | |||
| GEM vs. GEM + oxaliplatin | 1.330 (1.049-1.686) | 0.019 | |||
| GEM vs. GEM + cisplatin | 1.011 (0.794-1.287) | 0.928 | |||
| GEM vs. GEM + campotothecin | 1.029 (0.805-1.315) | 0.822 | |||
| Xie et al.[60] | 2010 | 18 | GEM + capecitabine vs. GEM | 0.85 | 0.04 |
| GEM + cisplatin vs. GEM | 0.99 | 0.88 | |||
| GEM + 5-FU vs. GEM | 0.95 | 0.46 | |||
| GEM + irinotecan vs. GEM | 1.03 | 0.77 | |||
| GEM + oxaliplatin vs. GEM | 0.80 | 0.001 | |||
| Heinemann et al.[61] | 2008 | 15 | GEM combination vs. GEM | 0.91 (0.85-0.97) | 0.004 |
| GEM + platinum-based vs. GEM | 0.85 (0.76-0.96) | 0.010 | |||
| GEM + fluropyrimidine vs. GEM | 0.90 (0.81-0.99) | 0.030 | |||
| GEM + irinotecan/exatecan/pemetrexe vs. GEM | 0.99 (0.88-1.10) | NS | |||
| Banu et al.[62] | 2007 | 23 | GEM combination vs. GEM | 0.96 | 0.003 |
| Bria et al.[63] | 2007 | 20 | GEM combination vs. GEM | 0.93 | 0.170 |
| GEM + platinum vs. GEM | 0.83 | 0.100 | |||
| Sultana et al.[64] | 2007 | 51 | GEM vs. 5-FU | 0.75 (0.42-1.31) | 0.310 |
| GEM combination vs. GEM | 0.91 (0.85-0.97) | 0.004 | |||
| GEM + platinum vs. GEM | 0.85 (0.74-0.96) | 0.010 | |||
| GEM + capecitabine vs. GEM | 0.83 (0.72-0.96) | 0.010 | |||
| GEM + irinotecan vs. GEM | 1.01 (0.84-1.22) | NS | |||
| GEM + 5-FU vs. GEM | 0.98 (0.86-1.11) | 0.730 | |||
| Cunningham et al.[13] | 2009 | 3 | GEM + capecitabine vs. GEM | 0.86 (0.75-0.98) | 0.020 |
GEM, gemcitabine; HR/RR/OR, hazard ratio/relative risk/odds ratio; NS, not significant; vs., versus; PEM, pemetrexed; PEGF, gemcitabine plus 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin and epirubicin.