Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376080›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2017

Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCALOP: a phase II randomised trial of gemcitabine- or capecitabine-based chemoradiation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

C N Hurt, S Falk, T Crosby, A McDonald, R Ray, G Joseph, J Staffurth, R A Abrams, G Griffiths, T Maughan and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

C N HurtCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, 6th Floor, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK.
S FalkBristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol BS2 8ED, UK.
T CrosbyVelindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Velindre Road, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK.
A McDonaldBeatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow G12 0YN, UK.
R RayCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, 6th Floor, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK.
G JosephVelindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Velindre Road, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK.
J StaffurthVelindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Hospital, Velindre Road, Cardiff CF14 2TL, UK.
R A AbramsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S. Paulina, 013 Atrium Building, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
G GriffithsSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
T MaughanCRUK MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology Gray Laboratories, Oxford University, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK.
S MukherjeeCRUK MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology Gray Laboratories, Oxford University, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15954
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSCALOP, a randomised, phase II trial, tested the activity and safety of gemcitabine (GEM)-based and capecitabine (CAP)-based chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Here we present the long-term outcomes.

methodsEligibility: histologically proven LAPC ⩽7 cm. Following 12 weeks of induction GEMCAP chemotherapy (three cycles: GEM 1000 mg m

resultsOne-hundred fourteen patients (28 UK centres) were registered between 24 December 2009 and 25 October 2011, and 74 were randomised (CAP-RT=36; GEM-RT=38). At the time of this analysis, 105 of the 114 patients had died and the surviving 9 patients had been followed up for a median of 10.9 months (IQR: 2.9-18.7). Updated median OS was 17.6 months (95% CI: 14.6-22.7) in the CAP-CRT arm and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.1-16.0) in the GEM-CRT arm (intention-to-treat adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.68 (95% CI: 0.38-1.21, P=0.185)); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.0 months (95% CI: 10.0-15.2) in the CAP-CRT arm and 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-12.7) in the GEM-CRT arm (intention-to-treat adjusted HR: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.32-1.14, P=0.120)). In baseline multivariable model, age ⩾65 years, better performance status, CA19.9<613 IU l

conclusionsCAP-CRT remains the superior regimen. SCALOP showed that patients with CA19.9 <46 IU ml

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCA-19-9 AntigenCapecitabineDeoxycytidineDisease-Free SurvivalDose Fractionation, RadiationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGemcitabineHumansInduction ChemotherapyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingCA-19-9 AntigenCapecitabineDeoxycytidineGemcitabine

Identifiers

PMID28376080
PMCPMC5482737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.