***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: This study was performed to determine the activity of adding continuous infusion ( CI ) of 5-fluorouracil ( 5-FU ) to gemcitabine ( GEM ) vs GEM alone in advanced pancreatic cancer ( APC ) . In all , 94 chemo-naïve patients with APC were r and omised to receive GEM alone ( arm A : 1000 mg m−2 per week for 7 weeks followed by a 2 week rest period , then weekly for 3 consecutive weeks out of every 4 weeks ) or in combination with CI 5-FU ( arm B : CI 5-FU 200 mg m−2 day−1 for 6 weeks followed by a 2 week rest period , then for 3 weeks every 4 weeks ) . Overall response rate ( RR ) was the primary end point and criteria for decision were planned according to the Simon 's optimal two-stage design . The overall RR was 8 % ( arm A ) and 11 % ( arm B ) ( 95 % confidence interval : 0.5–16 % and 2–22 % ) , respectively , and stable disease was 29 and 28 % . The median duration of RR was 34 weeks ( range 25–101 weeks ) for GEM and 26 weeks ( range 16–46 weeks ) for the combination . The median progression-free survival ( PFS ) was 14 weeks ( range 2–65 weeks ) and 18 weeks ( range 4–51 weeks ) , respectively . The median overall survival ( OS ) was 31 weeks ( range 1–101 weeks ) and 30 weeks ( 1–101 weeks ) . Toxicity was mild in both arms . This study does not show promising activity in terms of RR , PFS and OS for the double combination arm in APC PURPOSE This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine ( Gem ) plus capecitabine ( GemCap ) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer . PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were r and omly assigned to receive GemCap ( oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks ) or Gem ( 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks , followed by a 1-week break , and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks ) . Patients were stratified according to center , Karnofsky performance score ( KPS ) , presence of pain , and disease extent . RESULTS A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004 .  Median overall survival ( OS ) time , the primary end point , was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms , respectively ( P = .234 ) . Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS ( score of 90 to 100 ) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm ( 10.1 v 7.4 months , respectively ; P = .014 ) . The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm . Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms . CONCLUSION GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with st and ard Gem treatment . The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar . In the subgroup of patients with good performance status , median OS was improved significantly . GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status BACKGROUND To compare the efficacy and safety of three different chemotherapy doublets in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer ( PC ) . PATIENTS AND METHODS At total of 190 patients were r and omly assigned to receive capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2 ) twice daily on days 1 - 14 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2 ) on day 1 ( CapOx ) , capecitabine 825 mg/m(2 ) twice daily on days 1 - 14 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2 ) on days 1 and 8 ( CapGem ) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2 ) on days 1 and 8 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2 ) on day 8 ( mGemOx ) . Treatment cycles were repeated every three weeks . The primary end point was progression-free survival ( PFS ) rate at 3 months ; secondary end points included objective response rate , carbohydrate antigen 19 - 9 response , clinical benefit response , overall survival and toxicity . RESULTS The PFS rate after 3 months was 51 % in the CapOx arm , 64 % in the CapGem arm and 60 % in the mGemOx arm . Median PFS was estimated with 4.2 months , 5.7 months and 3.9 months , respectively ( P = 0.67 ) . Corresponding median survival times were : 8.1 months ( CapOx ) , 9.0 months ( CapGem ) and 6.9 months ( mGemOx ) ( P = 0.56 ) . Grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were more frequent in the two Gem-containing arms ; grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity rates did not exceed 15 % in any arm . CONCLUSION CapOx , CapGem and mGemOx have similar clinical efficacy in advanced PC . Each regimen has a distinct but manageable tolerability profile Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of gemcitabine ( GEM ) and S-1 ( GS ) in comparison to GEM alone ( G ) for unresectable pancreatic cancer . Methods In this multicenter r and omized phase II study , we r and omly assigned unresectable pancreatic cancer patients to either the GS group or the G group . The GS group regimen consists of intravenous 1,000 mg/m2 GEM during 30 min on days 1 and 8 , combined with 80 mg/m2 oral S-1 twice daily on days 1–14 , repeated every 3 weeks . On the other h and , the G group regimen consists of intravenous 1,000 mg/m2 GEM on days 1 , 8 , and 15 , repeated every 4 weeks . The primary endpoint was objective response rate ( ORR ) . Secondary end points included treatment toxicity , clinical response benefit , progression-free survival ( PFS ) , and overall survival . Results We registered 117 patients from 16 institutions between June 2007 and August , 2010 . The ORR of the GS group was 28.3 % , whereas that of the G group was 6.8 % . This difference was statistically significant ( P = 0.005 ) . The disease control rate was 64.2 % in the GS group and 44.1 % in the G group . Median PFS was 6.15 months in the GS group and 3.78 month in the G group . This was also statistically significant ( P = 0.0007 ) . Moreover , the median overall survival ( OS ) of the GS group was significantly longer than that of the G group ( 13.7 months vs. 8.0 months ; P = 0.035 ) . The major grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia ( 54.7 % in the GS group and 22.0 % in the G group ) , thrombocytopenia ( 15.1 % in the GS group and 5.1 % in the G group ) , and skin rash ( 9.4 % in the GS group ) . Conclusions The GS group showed stronger anticancer activity than the G group , suggesting the need for a large r and omized phase III study to confirm GS advantages in a specific subset BACKGROUND In a phase 1 - 2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel ( nab-paclitaxel ) plus gemcitabine , substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer . We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer . METHODS We r and omly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more ( on a scale from 0 to 100 , with higher scores indicating better performance status ) to nab-paclitaxel ( 125 mg per square meter of body-surface area ) followed by gemcitabine  ( 1000 mg per square meter ) on days 1 , 8 , and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy ( 1000 mg per square meter ) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks ( cycle 1 ) and then on days 1 , 8 , and 15 every 4 weeks ( cycle 2 and subsequent cycles ) . Patients received the study treatment until disease progression . The primary end point was overall survival ; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate . RESULTS A total of 861 patients were r and omly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine ( 431 patients ) or gemcitabine  ( 430 ) . The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group ( hazard ratio for death , 0.72 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.62 to 0.83 ; P<0.001 ) . The survival rate was 35 % in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22 % in the gemcitabine group at 1 year , and 9 % versus 4 % at 2 years . The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group , as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group ( hazard ratio for disease progression or death , 0.69 ; 95 % CI , 0.58 to 0.82 ; P<0.001 ) ; the response rate according to independent review was 23 % versus 7 % in the two groups ( P<0.001 ) . The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia ( 38 % in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27 % in the gemcitabine group ) , fatigue ( 17 % vs. 7 % ) , and neuropathy ( 17 % vs. 1 % ) . Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3 % versus 1 % of the patients in the two groups . In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group , neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days . CONCLUSIONS In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma , nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival , progression-free survival , and response rate , but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased . ( Funded by Celgene ; Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00844649 . ) Background : This r and omised phase II trial compared gemcitabine alone vs gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer . Methods : Patients were r and omly assigned to 4-week treatment with gemcitabine alone ( 1000 , mg m−2 gemcitabine by 30-min infusion on days 1 , 8 , and 15 ) or gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy ( 1000 , mg m−2 gemcitabine by 30-min infusion on days 1 and 15 and 40 mg m−2 S-1 orally twice daily on days 1–15 ) . The primary end point was progression-free survival ( PFS ) . Results : Between July 2006 and February 2009 , 106 patients were enrolled .  The PFS  in gemcitabine and S-1 combination arm was significantly longer than in gemcitabine arm ( 5.4 vs 3.6 months ) , with a hazard ratio of 0.64 ( P=0.036 ) . Overall survival ( OS ) for gemcitabine and S-1 combination was longer than that for gemcitabine monotherapy ( 13.5 vs 8.8 months ) , with a hazard ratio of 0.72 ( P=0.104 ) . Overall , grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar in both arms . Conclusion : Gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy  demonstrated longer PFS in advanced pancreatic cancer . Improved OS duration of 4.7 months was found for gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy , though this was not statistically significant CONTEXT Combination chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX ( oxaliplatin , irinotecan , fluorouracil , and leucovorin ) was shown to be effective in a large phase III trial . OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to examine the tolerance and effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX as practice d outside of the confines of a clinical trial and to document any dose modifications used by practicing oncologists . METHODS Data on patients with all stages of pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with FOLFIRINOX at three institutions was analyzed for efficacy , tolerance , and use of any dose modifications . RESULTS Total of 61 patients was included in this review . Median age was 58 years ( range : 37 to 72 years ) , 33 were male ( 54.1 % ) and majority had ECOG performance of 0 or 1 ( 86.9 % , 53 patients ) . Thirty-eight ( 62 
    Output:
    
Conclusions FOLFIRINOX appeared to be the best regimen for advanced pancreatic cancer probabilistically , with a trend towards improvement in survival when compared with other regimens by indirect comparisons