Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,926

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 access
Neoptolemos, John P, Palmer, Daniel H, Ghaneh, Paula, Psarelli, Eftychia E, Valle, Juan W, Halloran, Christopher M, Faluyi, Olusola, O'Reilly, Derek A, Cunningham, David, Wadsley, Jonathan, Darby, Suzanne, Meyer, Tim, Gillmore, Roopinder, Anthoney, Alan, Lind, Pehr, Glimelius, Bengt, Falk, Stephen, Izbicki, Jakob R, Middleton, Gary William, Cummins, Sebastian, Ross, Paul J, Wasan, Harpreet, McDonald, Alec, Crosby, Tom, Ma, Yuk Ting, Patel, Kinnari, Sherriff, David, Soomal, Rubin, Borg, David, Sothi, Sharmila, Hammel, Pascal, Hackert, Thilo, Jackson, Richard, Büchler, Markus W·2017·The Lancet

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32409-6

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 1,926

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.