Table 1.
Ref. | Patients no./disease stage | Study type | Drugs | OS | PFS | Benefit |
Burtness et al[19], 2014 | 87/metastatic | II RCT | Docetaxel + Irinotecan ± Cetuximab | 6.5 vs 5.4 | 3.9 vs 4.5 | Negative |
Fensterer et al[20], 2014 | 73/resected | II | GEM + Cetuximab | 22.4 | NA | Negative |
Philip et al[21], 2010 | 743/locally advanced or metastatic | III RCT | GEM ± Cetuximab | 5.9 vs 6.3 | 3 vs 3.5 | Negative |
Munter et al[22], 2008 | 66/locally advanced | II RCT | RT + GEM ± Cetuximab | 15 | - | Negative |
Lim et al[23], 2014 | 127/locally advanced | Retrospective | GEM + Capecitabine vs GEM + Erlotinib vs GEM | 21 vs 12 vs 15 | 8.9 vs 5.2 vs 3.9 | Negative for Erlotinib |
Philip et al[24], 2014 | 10/metastatic | I RCT | GEM + Erlotinib + Cixutumumab vs GEM + Erlotinib | 7 vs 6.7 | 3.6 vs 3.6 | Negative |
Watkins et al[25], 2014 | 44/advanced | II | GEM + Capecitabine + Erlotinib +Bevacizumab | 12.6 | 8.4 | |
Herman et al[26], 2013 | 48/metastatic | II | Capecitabine + Erlotinib + RT followed by GEM + Erlotinib | 24.4 | 15.6 | |
Feliu et al[27], 2011 | 42/advanced | II RCT | GEM + Erlotinib | 8 | 5 | Negative |
Moore et al[28], 2007 | 569/advanced | III RCT | Gem + Erlotinib vs GEM | 6.2 vs 5.9 | 3.7 vs 3.5 | Positive |
Harder et al[29], 2012 | 17/metastatic HER2+ | II | Capecitabine + Trastuzumab | 6.9 | 12.5 | Negative |
Safran et al[30], 2004 | 34/metastatic | II | Gemcitabine + Trastuzumab | 7 | Negative | |
Bodoky et al[31], 2012 | 70/advanced | II | Capecitabine vs Selumetinib | 5 vs 5.4 | 88% vs 84% | Negative |
Infante et al[32], 2014 | 160/metastatic | II RCT | GEM + Trametinib vs GEM | 8.4 vs 6.7 | - | Negative |
Fuchs et al[33], 2015 | 322/metastatic | III RCT | GEM + Ganitumab vs GEM | 7.2 vs 7 | 3.7 vs 3.6 | Negative |
McCaffery et al[34], 2013 | 84/metastatic | IIRCT | GEM+Ganitumab vs GEM | 16 vs 5.9 | Positive | |
Kindler et al[35], 2012 | 125/metastatic | II RCT | GEM + Ganitumab vs GEM + Conatumumab vs GEM | 8.7 vs 7.5 vs 5.9 | 5.1 vs 4 vs 2 | Positive |
Bramhall et al[36], 2002 | 239/advanced | RCT | GEM + Marimastat vs GEM | 165.5 d | 92.5 d | Negative |
De Jesus-Acosta et al[37], 2014 | 17/metastatic second line therapy | I | GEM+ inhibitor γ secretase | 4 | 1.5 | Positive |
Goldstein et al[38], 2015 | 861/metastatic | III RCT | GEM + Nab-paclitaxel vs GEM | 8.7 vs 6.6 | - | Positive |
Hosein et al[39], 2013 | 19/advanced second line therapy | II | GEM + Nab-paclitaxel | 7.3 | - | Positive |
Pant et al[40], 2014 | 30/advanced locally | II | GEM + Capecitabine Bevacizumab | 10.4 | Negative | |
Kindler et al[41], 2010 | 535/advanced | III RCT | GEM + Bevacizumab vs GEM | 5.8 vs 5.9 | 3.8 vs 2.9 | Negative |
Crane et al[42], 2009 | 82/advanced | II | RT + capecitabine+bevacizumab, followed by GEM + bevacizumab | 11.9 | Negative | |
Ko et al[43], 2010 | 36/metastatic GEM refractory | II | Bevacizumab + Erlotinib | 102 d | Negative | |
Van Cutsem et al[44], 2009 | 607/metastatic | III RCT | GEM + erlotinib + bevacizumab vs GEM + erlotinib | 7.1 vs 6 | 4.6 vs 3.6 | Negative |
IokaT et al[45], 2015 | 632/advanced | III RCT | GEM + axitinib vs GEM | 5.1 vs 5.4 | - | Negative |
Spano et al[46], 2008 | 103/advanced and metastatic | II RCT | GEM + axitinib vs GEM | 6.9 vs 5.6 | - | Negative |
Kindler et al[47], 2011 | 632/advanced or metastatic | III RCT | GEM + axitinib vs GEM | 8.5 vs 8.3 | - | Negative |
Rougier et al[48], 2013 | 427/metastatic | III RCT | GEM + Aflibercept vs GEM | 6.5 vs 7.8 | 3.7 vs 3.7 | Negative |
Chiorean et al[49], 2014 | 27/advanced | GEM + Sorafenib followed by RT + GEM | 12.6 | 10.6 | Negative | |
Cascinu et al[50], 2014 | 144/advanced | II RCT | GEM + Cisplatin + Sorafenib vs GEM + Cisplatin | 7.5 vs 8.3 | 4.3 vs 4.5 | Negative |
Gonçalves et al[51], 2012 | 104/advanced or metastatic | IIIRCT | GEM + Sorafenib vs GEM | 5.7 vs 3.8 | 9.2 vs 8 | Negative |
OS: Overall survival; PFS: Progression free survival; RCT: Randomized control trial; Advanced diseases: Locally advanced and metastatic; RT: Radiotherapy; GEM: Gemcitabine.