Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24772208›Full record

ArticleTranslational oncology2014

Phase II Trial of Cetuximab and Conformal Radiotherapy Only in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer with Concurrent Tissue Sampling Feasibility Study.

Agata I Rembielak, Pooja Jain, Andrew S Jackson, Melanie M Green, Gillian R Santorelli, Gillian A Whitfield, Adrian Crellin, Angel Garcia-Alonso, Ganesh Radhakrishna, James Cullen and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A PET Imaging Strategy for Interrogating Target Engagement and Oncogene Status in Pancreatic Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2019
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Agata I RembielakAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; The Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Pooja JainAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; The Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Andrew S JacksonAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; The Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Melanie M GreenAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gillian R SantorelliAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Gillian A WhitfieldAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; The Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Adrian CrellinSt James' Institute of Oncology, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Angel Garcia-AlonsoNorth Wales Cancer Treatment Centre, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Rhyl, United Kingdom.
Ganesh RadhakrishnaSt James' Institute of Oncology, Leeds, United Kingdom.
James CullenAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
M Ben TaylorThe Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Ric SwindellThe Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Catharine M WestAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Juan ValleAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; The Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Azeem SaleemAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; Imanova Centre for Imaging Sciences, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Patricia M PriceAcademic Department of Radiation Oncology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom ; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBNational Health Service · GBSt James's University Hospital · GBThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GBBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board · GBHammersmith Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16465Cancer Research UK 18097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreclinical data have indicated the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent cetuximab (Erbitux) as a radiosensitizer in pancreatic cancer, but this has not been specifically addressed in a clinical study. We report the results of an original study initiated in 2007, where cetuximab was tested with radiotherapy (RT) alone in locally advanced pancreatic cancer in a phase II trial (PACER).

methodsPatients (n = 21) received cetuximab loading dose (400 mg/m(2)) and weekly dose (250 mg/m(2)) during RT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions). Toxicity and disease response end point data were prospectively assessed. A feasibility study of on-trial patient blood and skin sampling was incorporated.

resultsTreatment was well tolerated, and toxicity was low; most patients (71%) experienced acute toxicities of grade 2 or less. Six months posttreatment, stable local disease was achieved in 90% of evaluable patients, but only 33% were free from metastatic progression. Median overall survival was 7.5 months, and actuarial survival was 33% at 1 year and 11% at 3 years, reflecting swift metastatic progression in some patients but good long-term control of localized disease in others. High-grade acneiform rash (P = .0027), posttreatment stable disease (P = .0059), and pretreatment cancer antigen 19.9 (CA19.9) level (P = .0042) associated with extended survival. Patient skin and blood samples yielded sufficient RNA and good quality protein, respectively.

conclusionsThe results indicate that cetuximab inhibits EGFR-mediated radioresistance to achieve excellent local control with minimal toxicity but does not sufficiently control metastatic progression in all patients. Translational studies of patient tissue samples may yield molecular information that may enable individual treatment response prediction.

Identifiers

PMID24772208
PMCPMC3998695
OpenAlexW2163032061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.