Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Systemic treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer—step by step progress
  1. Thomas Seufferlein
  1. Correspondence to Professor Thomas Seufferlein, Department of Internal Medicine I, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, Ulm D-89081, Germany; thomas.seufferlein{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Advanced pancreatic cancer still has a dismal prognosis. For the past 15 years, gemcitabine has been the standard of care for this disease providing clinical benefit and a median overall survival of slightly more than 6 months. Many compounds have been examined in combination with gemcitabine, but only the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, erlotinib, led to a significant improvement in overall survival of the patients.1 However, the absolute improvement was only in the range of several days in the intention to treat population. A subgroup of patients, namely those who developed a skin rash in response to erlotinib, seemed to benefit more from the addition of the drug. Recently, a combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, the so-called FOLFIRINOX regimen, showed for the first time a marked improvement of overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer compared with single-agent gemcitabine.2 This finding has two implications: Pancreatic cancer is not as chemotherapy-resistant as previously thought, and gemcitabine may not be the ideal combination partner for other chemotherapeutic agents in pancreatic cancer. How to proceed after failure of first-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer is still an open question.

Heinemann and colleagues3 investigated a sequential treatment with conventionally dosed gemcitabine, or capecitabine plus erlotinib, followed by the comparator cytostatic …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles