Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session

1304 - Inoperable Carcinoma Gallbladder: Comparison of two palliative Chemotherapy regimens (Gemcitabine-Platinum versus CAPEOX)

Date

09 Sep 2017

Session

Poster display session

Topics

Cytotoxic Therapy;  Hepatobiliary Cancers

Presenters

Hemant Malhotra

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v209-v268. 10.1093/annonc/mdx369

Authors

H. Malhotra1, A. Daga2, D. Gangopadhayay3, A. Yadav4, A. Mathur3, B. Malhotra5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medicine & Medical Oncology, SMS (Sawai Man Singh) Medical College & attached Hospital, 302004 - Jaipur/IN
  • 2 Medicine, SMS (Sawai Man Singh) Medical College & attached Hospital, 302004 - Jaipur/IN
  • 3 Medicine, SMS (Sawai Man Singh) Medical College & attached Hospital, Jaipur/IN
  • 4 Medicine & Medical Oncology, SMS (Sawai Man Singh) Medical College & attached Hospital, Jaipur/IN
  • 5 Microbiology, SMS (Sawai Man Singh) Medical College & attached Hospital, Jaipur/IN
More

Resources

Abstract 1304

Background

Cancer of the gall bladder (CaGB) constitutes one of the ten commonest cancers in women in north India. Palliative chemotherapy is indicated for the advanced stage, inoperable patient in good performance status (PS). There is no standard-of-care regimen for this disease. We prospectively evaluated the efficacy & safety of GEMPLAT v/s CAPEOX chemotherapy in this cohort of patients.

Methods

Fifty chemo-naive, newly diagnosed patients (25 in each arm) of inoperable CA GB, in good PS (0, I, II) were included. Patients were randomised to receive either GEMPLAT or CAPOX. Primary end point was response rates (RR) & progression free survival (PFS); secondary end point: Overall survival (OS), toxicity & quality of life (QOL). Response assessment was done after every two cycles using by the RECIST 1.1 criteria. QOL was assessed every two cycles.

Results

Thirty one females & 19 males, mean age of 45.7 years (range 32 to 69) were included. There were no CRs in either arm. Partial response (PR) & stable disease (SD) was seen in 6 (24%) & 8 (32%) patients, respectively, in GEMPLAT arm; and 2 (8%) and 5 (20%) achieved PR and SD, respectively in CAPEOX group. Overall response rate (ORR) was 24% & 8%, respectively, for GEMPLAT & CAPOX. The median OS in GEMPLAT arm was 9.9 months versus 2.6 moths in CAPOX. The median PFS was higher in GEMPLAT group (7.6 months) as compared to CAPOX group (1.5 months). Grade 3/4 anemia & neutropenia occurred in 3 (12%) & 2 (8%) patients in the GEMPLAT arm, respectively with no grade 3/4 hematological toxicities in CAPOX arm. Five (20%) patients developed grade 3/4 transaminitis on GEMPLAT. One (4%) patients in CAPOX arm developed sensory neuropathy and 3 (12%) have grade 3/4 skin toxicity.

Conclusions

In our study, the GEMPLAT regimen showed higher RR, OS and PFS as compared to CAPOX. QOL was better in the GEMPLAT arm. CAPOX regimen was better tolerated and less toxic. The main toxicity of GEMPLAT was haematological & hepatic while that of CAPEOX was dermatological. We conclude that GEMPLAT should be the standard-of-care first line palliative chemotherapy regimen for inoperable CaGB patients in good PS. Larger, multi-centre studies are needed to confirm our findings and to compare CAPOX/other regimens with GEMPLAT.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Prof. Dr. Hemant Malhotra

Funding

None

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.