gemcitabine injection powder 2GM Clinical Studies

14 CLINICAL STUDIES

14.1 Ovarian Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in a randomized trial (Study 1) conducted in women with advanced ovarian cancer that had relapsed at least 6 months after first-line platinum-based therapy. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle with carboplatin AUC 4 on Day 1 after gemcitabine administration (n=178) or carboplatin AUC 5 on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle (n=178). The major efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS).

A total of 356 patients were enrolled. Demographics and baseline characteristics are shown in Table 16.

Efficacy results are presented in Table 17 and Figure 1. The addition of gemcitabine to carboplatin resulted in statistically significant improvements in PFS and overall response rate. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm received additional chemotherapy for disease progression; 13 of 120 patients in the carboplatin alone arm received gemcitabine for treatment of disease progression. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms.

Table 16: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Study 1
Gemcitabine/Carboplatin
(N=178)
Carboplatin
(N=178)
*
5 patients on gemcitabine with carboplatin arm and 4 patients on carboplatin arm had no baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.
2 patients on gemcitabine with carboplatin arm and 1 patient on carboplatin arm had platinum-free interval <6 months.

Median age, years

59

58

  Range

36 to 178

21 to 81

Baseline ECOG performance status 0–1*

94%

95%

Disease Status

  Evaluable

8%

3%

  Bidimensionally measurable

92%

96%

Platinum-free interval

  6–12 months

40%

40%

  >12 months

59%

60%

First-line therapy

  Platinum-taxane combination

70%

71%

  Platinum-non-taxane combination

29%

28%

  Platinum monotherapy

1%

1%

Table 17: Efficacy Results in Study 1
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine/Carboplatin
(N=178)
Carboplatin
(N=178)
*
CI=confidence interval.
Log rank, unadjusted.
Chi square.
§
CR=Complete response.
PR with PRNM=Partial response with partial response, non-measurable disease.
#
Independently reviewed cohort - gemcitabine/carboplatin (n=121), carboplatin (n=101); independent reviewers unable to measure disease detected by sonography or physical exam.

Progression-Free Survival

Median (95% CI*) in months

8.6 (8.0, 9.7)

5.8 (5.2, 7.1)

  Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.72 (0.57, 0.90)

  p-value

p=0.0038

  Overall Survival

Median (95% CI) in months

18.0 (16.2, 20.3)

17.3 (15.2, 19.3)

  Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.98 (0.78, 1.24)

  p-value

p=0.8977

Overall Response Rate by Investigator Review

47.2%

30.9%

  p-value

p=0.0016

  CR§

14.6%

6.2%

  PR with PRNM

32.6%

24.7%

Overall Response Rate# by Independent Review

46.3%

35.6%

  p-value

p=0.11

  CR§

9.1%

4.0%

  PR with PRNM

37.2%

31.7%

Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Progression-Free Survival in Study 1

Figure 1

14.2 Breast Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in a multinational, randomized, open-label trial (Study 2) conducted in women receiving initial treatment for metastatic breast cancer and who have received prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy unless clinically contraindicated. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 administered on Day 1 before gemcitabine administration (n=267) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle (n=262). The major efficacy outcome measure was time to documented disease progression.

A total of 529 patients were enrolled. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (Table 18).

Efficacy results are presented in Table 19 and Figure 2. The addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel resulted in statistically significant improvement in time to documented disease progression and overall response rate compared to paclitaxel alone. There was no significant difference in overall survival.

Table 18: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Study 2
Gemcitabine/Paclitaxel
(N=267)
Paclitaxel
(N=262)
*
Karnofsky Performance Status.

Median age (years)

53

52

  Range

26 to 83

26 to 75

Metastatic disease

97%

97%

Baseline KPS * ≥90

70%

74%

Number of tumor sites

    1–2

57%

59%

    ≥3

43%

41%

Visceral disease

73%

73%

Prior anthracycline

97%

96%

Table 19: Efficacy Results in Study 2
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine/Paclitaxel
(N=267)
Paclitaxel
(N=262)
*
These represent reconciliation of investigator and Independent Review Committee assessments according to a predefined algorthm.
Based on the ITT population.

Time to Documented Disease Progression*

Median (95% CI) in months

5.2 (4.2, 5.6)

2.9 (2.6, 3.7)

    Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.650 (0.524, 0.805)

    p-value

p<0.0001

Overall Survival

    Median (95% CI) in months

18.6(16.5, 20.7)

15.8 (14.1, 17.3)

    Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.86 (0.71, 1.04)

    p-value

Not Significant

Overall Response Rate

40.8%

22.1%

    (95% CI)

(34.9, 46.7)

(17.1, 27.2)

    p-value

p<0.0001

Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Time to Documented Disease Progression in Study 2

Figure 2

14.3 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in two randomized, multicenter trials.

Study 3: 28-Day Schedule

A multinational, randomized trial (Study 3) compared gemcitabine with cisplatin to cisplatin alone in the treatment of patients with inoperable Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IV NSCLC who had not received prior chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 after gemcitabine administration (N=260) or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle (N=262). The major efficacy outcome measure was overall survival.

A total of 522 patients were enrolled. Demographics and baseline characteristics (Table 20) were similar between arms with the exception of histologic subtype of NSCLC, with 48% of patients on the cisplatin arm and 37% of patients on the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm having adenocarcinoma.

Efficacy results are presented in Table 21 and Figure 3.

Study 4: 21-Day Schedule

A randomized (1:1), multicenter trial (Study 4) was conducted in patients with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 after gemcitabine administration or etoposide 100 mg/m2 intravenously on Days 1, 2, and 3 with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 of each 21 -day cycle. The major efficacy outcome measure was response rate.

A total of 135 patients were enrolled. Demographics and baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 20.

Efficacy results are presented in Table 21. There was no significant difference in survival between the two treatment arms. The median survival was 8.7 months for the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm versus 7 months for the etoposide with cisplatin arm. Median time to disease progression for the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm was 5 months compared to 4.1 months on the etoposide with cisplatin arm (Log rank p=0.015, two-sided). The objective response rate for the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm was 33% compared to 14% on the etoposide with cisplatin arm (Fisher's Exact p=0.01, two-sided).

Table 20: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Studies 3 and 4
Trial28-day Schedule (Study 3)21-day Schedule (Study 4)
Gemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=260)
Cisplatin
(N=262)
Gemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=69)
Etoposide/ Cisplatin
(N=66)
*
N/A Not applicable.
Karnofsky Performance Status.

Male

70%

71%

93%

92%

Median age, years

62

63

58

60

Range

36 to 88

35 to 79

33 to 76

35 to 75

Stage IIIA

7%

7%

N/A*

N/A*

Stage IIIB

26%

23%

48%

52%

Stage IV

67%

70%

52%

49%

Baseline KPS 70 to 80

41%

44%

45%

52%

Baseline KPS 90 to 100

57%

55%

55%

49%

Table 21: Efficacy Results for Studies 3 and 4
Trial28-day Schedule (Study 3)21-day Schedule (Study 4)
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=260)
Cisplatin
(N=262)
Gemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=69)
Etoposide/Cisplatin
(N=66)
*
CI=confidence intervals.
p-value two-sided Fisher's Exact test for difference in binomial proportions; log rank test for time-to-event analyses.

Survival

  Median (95% CI*) in months

9.0 (8.2, 11.0)

7.6 (6.6, 8.8)

8.7 (7.8, 10.1)

7.0 (6.0, 9.7)

  p-value

p=0.008

p=0.18

Time to Disease Progression

  Median in months (95% CI*) in months

5.2 (4.2, 5.7)

3.7 (3.0, 4.3)

5.0 (4.2, 6.4)

4.1 (2.4, 4.5)

  p-value

p=0.009

p=0.015

Tumor Response

26%

10%

33%

14%

  p-value

p<0.0001

p=0.01

Figure 3: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Overall Survival in Study 3

Figure 3

14.4 Pancreatic Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in two trials (Studies 5 and 6), a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, active-controlled trial (Study 5) conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy and in a single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial (Study 6) conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with fluorouracil or a fluorouracil-containing regimen. In Study 5, patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes once weekly for 7 weeks followed by a one-week rest, then once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks every 28-days in subsequent cycles (n=63) or fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes once weekly (n=63). In Study 6, all patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes once weekly for 7 weeks followed by a one-week rest, then once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks every 28-days in subsequent cycles.

The major efficacy outcome measure in both trials was "clinical benefit response". A patient was considered to have had a clinical benefit response if either of the following occurred:

The patient achieved a ≥50% reduction in pain intensity (Memorial Pain Assessment Card) or analgesic consumption, or a 20-point or greater improvement in performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status) for a period of at least 4 consecutive weeks, without showing any sustained worsening in any of the other parameters. Sustained worsening was defined as 4 consecutive weeks with either any increase in pain intensity or analgesic consumption or a 20-point decrease in performance status occurring during the first 12 weeks of therapy.
OR
The patient was stable on all of the aforementioned parameters and showed a marked, sustained weight gain (≥7% increase maintained for ≥4 weeks) not due to fluid accumulation.

Study 5 enrolled 126 patients. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the arms (Table 22).

The efficacy results are shown in Table 23 and Figure 4. Patients treated with gemcitabine had statistically significant increases in clinical benefit response, survival, and time to disease progression compared to those randomized to receive fluorouracil. No confirmed objective tumor responses were observed in either treatment arm.

Table 22: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Study 5
Gemcitabine
(N=63)
Fluorouracil
(N=63)
*
Karnofsky Performance Status.

  Male

54%

54%61

Median age, years

62

61

  Range

37 to 79

36 to 77

Stage IV disease

71%

76%

Baseline KPS* ≤70

70%

68%

Table 23: Efficacy Results in Study 5
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine
(N=63)
Fluorouracil
(N=63)
*
p-value for clinical benefit response calculated using the two-sided test for difference in binomial proportions. All other p-values are calculated using log rank test.

Clinical Benefit Response

22.2%

4.8%

  p-value*

p=0.004

Overall Survival
  Median (95% CI) in months

5.7 (4.7, 6.9)

4.2 (3.1, 5.1)

  p-value*

p=0.0009

Time to Disease Progression
  Median (95% CI) in months

2.1 (1.9, 3.4)

0.9 (0.9, 1.1)

  p-value*

p=0.0013

Figure 4: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Overall Survival in Study 5

Figure 4

Find gemcitabine injection powder 2GM medical information:

Find gemcitabine injection powder 2GM medical information:

Our scientific content is evidence-based, scientifically balanced and non-promotional. It undergoes rigorous internal medical review and is updated regularly to reflect new information.

gemcitabine injection powder 2GM Quick Finder

Prescribing Information
Download Prescribing Information

Health Professional Information

Clinical Studies

14 CLINICAL STUDIES

14.1 Ovarian Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in a randomized trial (Study 1) conducted in women with advanced ovarian cancer that had relapsed at least 6 months after first-line platinum-based therapy. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle with carboplatin AUC 4 on Day 1 after gemcitabine administration (n=178) or carboplatin AUC 5 on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle (n=178). The major efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS).

A total of 356 patients were enrolled. Demographics and baseline characteristics are shown in Table 16.

Efficacy results are presented in Table 17 and Figure 1. The addition of gemcitabine to carboplatin resulted in statistically significant improvements in PFS and overall response rate. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm received additional chemotherapy for disease progression; 13 of 120 patients in the carboplatin alone arm received gemcitabine for treatment of disease progression. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms.

Table 16: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Study 1
Gemcitabine/Carboplatin
(N=178)
Carboplatin
(N=178)
*
5 patients on gemcitabine with carboplatin arm and 4 patients on carboplatin arm had no baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.
2 patients on gemcitabine with carboplatin arm and 1 patient on carboplatin arm had platinum-free interval <6 months.

Median age, years

59

58

  Range

36 to 178

21 to 81

Baseline ECOG performance status 0–1*

94%

95%

Disease Status

  Evaluable

8%

3%

  Bidimensionally measurable

92%

96%

Platinum-free interval

  6–12 months

40%

40%

  >12 months

59%

60%

First-line therapy

  Platinum-taxane combination

70%

71%

  Platinum-non-taxane combination

29%

28%

  Platinum monotherapy

1%

1%

Table 17: Efficacy Results in Study 1
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine/Carboplatin
(N=178)
Carboplatin
(N=178)
*
CI=confidence interval.
Log rank, unadjusted.
Chi square.
§
CR=Complete response.
PR with PRNM=Partial response with partial response, non-measurable disease.
#
Independently reviewed cohort - gemcitabine/carboplatin (n=121), carboplatin (n=101); independent reviewers unable to measure disease detected by sonography or physical exam.

Progression-Free Survival

Median (95% CI*) in months

8.6 (8.0, 9.7)

5.8 (5.2, 7.1)

  Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.72 (0.57, 0.90)

  p-value

p=0.0038

  Overall Survival

Median (95% CI) in months

18.0 (16.2, 20.3)

17.3 (15.2, 19.3)

  Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.98 (0.78, 1.24)

  p-value

p=0.8977

Overall Response Rate by Investigator Review

47.2%

30.9%

  p-value

p=0.0016

  CR§

14.6%

6.2%

  PR with PRNM

32.6%

24.7%

Overall Response Rate# by Independent Review

46.3%

35.6%

  p-value

p=0.11

  CR§

9.1%

4.0%

  PR with PRNM

37.2%

31.7%

Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Progression-Free Survival in Study 1

Figure 1

14.2 Breast Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in a multinational, randomized, open-label trial (Study 2) conducted in women receiving initial treatment for metastatic breast cancer and who have received prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy unless clinically contraindicated. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 administered on Day 1 before gemcitabine administration (n=267) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle (n=262). The major efficacy outcome measure was time to documented disease progression.

A total of 529 patients were enrolled. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (Table 18).

Efficacy results are presented in Table 19 and Figure 2. The addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel resulted in statistically significant improvement in time to documented disease progression and overall response rate compared to paclitaxel alone. There was no significant difference in overall survival.

Table 18: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Study 2
Gemcitabine/Paclitaxel
(N=267)
Paclitaxel
(N=262)
*
Karnofsky Performance Status.

Median age (years)

53

52

  Range

26 to 83

26 to 75

Metastatic disease

97%

97%

Baseline KPS * ≥90

70%

74%

Number of tumor sites

    1–2

57%

59%

    ≥3

43%

41%

Visceral disease

73%

73%

Prior anthracycline

97%

96%

Table 19: Efficacy Results in Study 2
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine/Paclitaxel
(N=267)
Paclitaxel
(N=262)
*
These represent reconciliation of investigator and Independent Review Committee assessments according to a predefined algorthm.
Based on the ITT population.

Time to Documented Disease Progression*

Median (95% CI) in months

5.2 (4.2, 5.6)

2.9 (2.6, 3.7)

    Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.650 (0.524, 0.805)

    p-value

p<0.0001

Overall Survival

    Median (95% CI) in months

18.6(16.5, 20.7)

15.8 (14.1, 17.3)

    Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

0.86 (0.71, 1.04)

    p-value

Not Significant

Overall Response Rate

40.8%

22.1%

    (95% CI)

(34.9, 46.7)

(17.1, 27.2)

    p-value

p<0.0001

Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Time to Documented Disease Progression in Study 2

Figure 2

14.3 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in two randomized, multicenter trials.

Study 3: 28-Day Schedule

A multinational, randomized trial (Study 3) compared gemcitabine with cisplatin to cisplatin alone in the treatment of patients with inoperable Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IV NSCLC who had not received prior chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 after gemcitabine administration (N=260) or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle (N=262). The major efficacy outcome measure was overall survival.

A total of 522 patients were enrolled. Demographics and baseline characteristics (Table 20) were similar between arms with the exception of histologic subtype of NSCLC, with 48% of patients on the cisplatin arm and 37% of patients on the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm having adenocarcinoma.

Efficacy results are presented in Table 21 and Figure 3.

Study 4: 21-Day Schedule

A randomized (1:1), multicenter trial (Study 4) was conducted in patients with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 after gemcitabine administration or etoposide 100 mg/m2 intravenously on Days 1, 2, and 3 with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 of each 21 -day cycle. The major efficacy outcome measure was response rate.

A total of 135 patients were enrolled. Demographics and baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 20.

Efficacy results are presented in Table 21. There was no significant difference in survival between the two treatment arms. The median survival was 8.7 months for the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm versus 7 months for the etoposide with cisplatin arm. Median time to disease progression for the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm was 5 months compared to 4.1 months on the etoposide with cisplatin arm (Log rank p=0.015, two-sided). The objective response rate for the gemcitabine with cisplatin arm was 33% compared to 14% on the etoposide with cisplatin arm (Fisher's Exact p=0.01, two-sided).

Table 20: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Studies 3 and 4
Trial28-day Schedule (Study 3)21-day Schedule (Study 4)
Gemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=260)
Cisplatin
(N=262)
Gemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=69)
Etoposide/ Cisplatin
(N=66)
*
N/A Not applicable.
Karnofsky Performance Status.

Male

70%

71%

93%

92%

Median age, years

62

63

58

60

Range

36 to 88

35 to 79

33 to 76

35 to 75

Stage IIIA

7%

7%

N/A*

N/A*

Stage IIIB

26%

23%

48%

52%

Stage IV

67%

70%

52%

49%

Baseline KPS 70 to 80

41%

44%

45%

52%

Baseline KPS 90 to 100

57%

55%

55%

49%

Table 21: Efficacy Results for Studies 3 and 4
Trial28-day Schedule (Study 3)21-day Schedule (Study 4)
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=260)
Cisplatin
(N=262)
Gemcitabine/Cisplatin
(N=69)
Etoposide/Cisplatin
(N=66)
*
CI=confidence intervals.
p-value two-sided Fisher's Exact test for difference in binomial proportions; log rank test for time-to-event analyses.

Survival

  Median (95% CI*) in months

9.0 (8.2, 11.0)

7.6 (6.6, 8.8)

8.7 (7.8, 10.1)

7.0 (6.0, 9.7)

  p-value

p=0.008

p=0.18

Time to Disease Progression

  Median in months (95% CI*) in months

5.2 (4.2, 5.7)

3.7 (3.0, 4.3)

5.0 (4.2, 6.4)

4.1 (2.4, 4.5)

  p-value

p=0.009

p=0.015

Tumor Response

26%

10%

33%

14%

  p-value

p<0.0001

p=0.01

Figure 3: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Overall Survival in Study 3

Figure 3

14.4 Pancreatic Cancer

The efficacy of gemcitabine was evaluated in two trials (Studies 5 and 6), a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, active-controlled trial (Study 5) conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy and in a single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial (Study 6) conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with fluorouracil or a fluorouracil-containing regimen. In Study 5, patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes once weekly for 7 weeks followed by a one-week rest, then once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks every 28-days in subsequent cycles (n=63) or fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes once weekly (n=63). In Study 6, all patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes once weekly for 7 weeks followed by a one-week rest, then once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks every 28-days in subsequent cycles.

The major efficacy outcome measure in both trials was "clinical benefit response". A patient was considered to have had a clinical benefit response if either of the following occurred:

The patient achieved a ≥50% reduction in pain intensity (Memorial Pain Assessment Card) or analgesic consumption, or a 20-point or greater improvement in performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status) for a period of at least 4 consecutive weeks, without showing any sustained worsening in any of the other parameters. Sustained worsening was defined as 4 consecutive weeks with either any increase in pain intensity or analgesic consumption or a 20-point decrease in performance status occurring during the first 12 weeks of therapy.
OR
The patient was stable on all of the aforementioned parameters and showed a marked, sustained weight gain (≥7% increase maintained for ≥4 weeks) not due to fluid accumulation.

Study 5 enrolled 126 patients. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the arms (Table 22).

The efficacy results are shown in Table 23 and Figure 4. Patients treated with gemcitabine had statistically significant increases in clinical benefit response, survival, and time to disease progression compared to those randomized to receive fluorouracil. No confirmed objective tumor responses were observed in either treatment arm.

Table 22: Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics for Study 5
Gemcitabine
(N=63)
Fluorouracil
(N=63)
*
Karnofsky Performance Status.

  Male

54%

54%61

Median age, years

62

61

  Range

37 to 79

36 to 77

Stage IV disease

71%

76%

Baseline KPS* ≤70

70%

68%

Table 23: Efficacy Results in Study 5
Efficacy ParameterGemcitabine
(N=63)
Fluorouracil
(N=63)
*
p-value for clinical benefit response calculated using the two-sided test for difference in binomial proportions. All other p-values are calculated using log rank test.

Clinical Benefit Response

22.2%

4.8%

  p-value*

p=0.004

Overall Survival
  Median (95% CI) in months

5.7 (4.7, 6.9)

4.2 (3.1, 5.1)

  p-value*

p=0.0009

Time to Disease Progression
  Median (95% CI) in months

2.1 (1.9, 3.4)

0.9 (0.9, 1.1)

  p-value*

p=0.0013

Figure 4: Kaplan-Meier Curves for Overall Survival in Study 5

Figure 4
Medication Guide

Health Professional Information

{{section_name_patient}}

{{section_body_html_patient}}

Resources

Didn’t find what you were looking for? Contact us.

MI Digital Assistant

Chat online with Pfizer Medical Information regarding your inquiry on a Pfizer medicine.

Call 800-438-1985*

*Speak with a Pfizer Medical Information Professional regarding your medical inquiry. Available 9AM-5PM ET Monday to Friday; excluding holidays.

Medical Inquiry

Submit a medical question for Pfizer prescription products.

Report Adverse Event

Pfizer Safety

To report an adverse event related to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and you are not part of a clinical trial* for this product, click the link below to submit your information:

Pfizer Safety Reporting Site

*If you are involved in a clinical trial for this product, adverse events should be reported to your coordinating study site.

If you cannot use the above website, or would like to report an adverse event related to a different Pfizer product, please call Pfizer Safety at (800) 438-1985.

FDA Medwatch

You may also contact the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly to report adverse events or product quality concerns either online at www.fda.gov/medwatch or call (800) 822-7967.