Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 950

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Gemcitabine in Combination With Oxaliplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a GERCOR and GISCAD Phase III Trial

Open access
Louvet, C., Labianca, R., Hammel, P., Lledo, G., Zampino, M.G., André, T., Zaniboni, A., Ducreux, M., Aitini, E., Taïeb, J., Faroux, R., Lepere, C., de Gramont, A.·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Gemcitabine (Gem) is the standard treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. Given the promising phase II results obtained with the Gem-oxaliplatin (GemOx) combination, we conducted a phase III study comparing GemOx with Gem alone in advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were stratified according to center, performance status, and type of disease (locally advanced v metastatic) and randomly assigned to either GemOx (gemcitabine 1 g/m 2 as a 100-minute infusion on day 1 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m 2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 2 every 2 weeks) or Gem (gemcitabine 1 g/m 2 as a weekly 30-minute infusion). Results: Three hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled; 313 were eligible, and 157 and 156 were allocated to the GemOx and Gem arms, respectively. GemOx was superior to Gem in terms of response rate (26.8% v 17.3%, respectively; P = .04), progression-free survival (5.8 v 3.7 months, respectively; P = .04), and clinical benefit (38.2% v 26.9%, respectively; P = .03). Median overall survival (OS) for GemOx and Gem was 9.0 and 7.1 months, respectively (P = .13). GemOx was well tolerated overall, although a higher incidence of National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 and 4 toxicity per patient was observed for platelets (14.0% for GemOx v 3.2% for Gem), vomiting (8.9% for GemOx v 3.2% for Gem), and neurosensory symptoms (19.1% for GemOx v 0% for Gem). Conclusion: These results confirm the efficacy and safety of GemOx, but this study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant advantage in terms of OS compared with Gem. Because GemOx is the first combined treatment to be superior to Gem alone in terms of clinical benefit, this promising regimen deserves further development.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.06.023

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.

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

Cited by

See all 950

Metadata

Authors
Louvet, C., Labianca, R., Hammel, P., Lledo, G., Zampino, M. G., André, T., Zaniboni, A., Ducreux, M., Aitini, E., Taïeb, J., Faroux, R., Lepere, C., & de Gramont, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-05-20
Volume
23
Issue
15
Pages
3509-3516
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2097642908
Cited by
950
References
0
FWCI
28.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Gemcitabine in Combination With Oxaliplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a GERCOR and GISCAD Phase III Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.06.023
The paper
Louvet, C., Labianca, R., Hammel, P., Lledo, G., Zampino, M. G., André, T., Zaniboni, A., Ducreux, M., Aitini, E., Taïeb, J., Faroux, R., Lepere, C., & de Gramont, A. (2005). Gemcitabine in Combination With Oxaliplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a GERCOR and GISCAD Phase III Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.06.023

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.