The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial
Open accessAbstract
Background The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. Methods We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m 2 oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. Findings Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5–31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7–27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3–4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3–4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. Interpretation The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Funding Cancer Research UK.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_37 · Cited by 26,297
TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours
(1987) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-82982-6 · Cited by 16,049
Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4067 · Cited by 9,792
Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Armitage, P., Breslow, N. E., Cox, D. R., Howard, S. V., Mantel, N., McPherson, K., Peto, J., & Smith, P. G. (1977) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1977.1 · Cited by 8,285
FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
Conroy, T., Desseigne, F., Ychou, M., Bouché, O., Guimbaud, R., Bécouarn, Y., Adenis, A., Raoul, J.-L., Gourgou-Bourgade, S., de la Fouchardière, C., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1011923 · Cited by 7,810
Spencer, P. M., Cameron, J. L., & Lin, L. (2000) · Cited by 7,202
Increased Survival in Pancreatic Cancer with nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine
Von Hoff, D. D., Ervin, T., Arena, F. P., Chiorean, E. G., Infante, J., Moore, M., Seay, T., Tjulandin, S. A., Ma, W. W., Saleh, M. N., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1304369 · Cited by 6,712
Asymptotically Efficient Rank Invariant Test Procedures
Peto, R., & Peto, J. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344317 · Cited by 3,393
Cited by
FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer
Conroy, T., Hammel, P., Hebbar, M., Ben Abdelghani, M., Wei, A. C., Raoul, J.-L., Choné, L., Francois, E., Artru, P., Biagi, J. J., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1809775 · Cited by 2,874
Self-citationMizrahi, J. D., Surana, R., Valle, J. W., & Shroff, R. T. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30974-0 · Cited by 2,559
Self-citationPancreatic cancer: Advances and challenges
Halbrook, C. J., Lyssiotis, C. A., Pasca di Magliano, M., & Maitra, A. (2023) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.02.014 · Cited by 1,321
Therapeutic developments in pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives
Neoptolemos, J. P., Kleeff, J., Michl, P., Costello, E., Greenhalf, W., & Palmer, D. H. (2018) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-018-0005-x · Cited by 1,170
Self-citationOrganoid Profiling Identifies Common Responders to Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer
Tiriac, H., Belleau, P., Engle, D. D., Plenker, D., Deschênes, A., Somerville, T. D. D., Froeling, F. E. M., Burkhart, R. A., Denroche, R. E., Jang, G.-H., et al. (2018) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-18-0349 · Cited by 1,092
Metadata
- Authors
- Neoptolemos, J. P., Palmer, D. H., Ghaneh, P., Psarelli, E. E., Valle, J. W., Halloran, C. M., Faluyi, O., O'Reilly, D. A., Cunningham, D., Wadsley, J., Darby, S., Meyer, T., Gillmore, R., Anthoney, A., Lind, P., Glimelius, B., Falk, S., Izbicki, J. R., Middleton, G. W., Cummins, S., Ross, P. J., Wasan, H., McDonald, A., Crosby, T., Ma, Y. T., Patel, K., Sherriff, D., Soomal, R., Borg, D., Sothi, S., Hammel, P., Hackert, T., Jackson, R., & Büchler, M. W.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 389
- Issue
- 10073
- Pages
- 1011-1024
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2581973599
- Cited by
- 1,926
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 85.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32409-6
- The paper
- Neoptolemos, J. P., Palmer, D. H., Ghaneh, P., Psarelli, E. E., Valle, J. W., Halloran, C. M., Faluyi, O., O'Reilly, D. A., Cunningham, D., Wadsley, J., Darby, S., Meyer, T., Gillmore, R., Anthoney, A., Lind, P., Glimelius, B., Falk, S., Izbicki, J. R., Middleton, G. W., . . . Büchler, M. W. (2017). Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32409-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.