Skip to main content
. 2015 May 28;21(20):6127–6145. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i20.6127

Table 1.

Results of different studies concerning new targeted therapy

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.