New targeted therapies in pancreatic cancer

Table 1 Results of different studies concerning new targeted therapy

Ref.	Patients no./disease stage	Study type	Drugs	OS	PFS	Benefit
Burtness et al[19], 2014	87/metastatic	II RCT	Docetaxel + Irinotecan ± Cetuximab	6.5 vs 5.4	3.9 vs 4.5	Negative
Fensterer et al[20], 2014	73/resected	II	GEM + Cetuximab	22.4	NA	Negative
Philip et al[21], 2010	743/locally advanced or metastatic	III RCT	GEM ± Cetuximab	5.9 vs 6.3	3 vs 3.5	Negative
Munter et al[22], 2008	66/locally advanced	II RCT	RT + GEM ± Cetuximab	15	-	Negative
Lim et al[23], 2014	127/locally advanced	Retrospective	GEM + Capecitabine vs GEM + Erlotinib vs GEM	21 vs 12 vs 15	8.9 vs 5.2 vs 3.9	Negative for Erlotinib
Philip et al[24], 2014	10/metastatic	I RCT	GEM + Erlotinib + Cixutumumab vs GEM + Erlotinib	7 vs 6.7	3.6 vs 3.6	Negative
Watkins et al[25], 2014	44/advanced	II	GEM + Capecitabine + Erlotinib +Bevacizumab	12.6	8.4
Herman et al[26], 2013	48/metastatic	II	Capecitabine + Erlotinib + RT followed by GEM + Erlotinib	24.4	15.6
Feliu et al[27], 2011	42/advanced	II RCT	GEM + Erlotinib	8	5	Negative
Moore et al[28], 2007	569/advanced	III RCT	Gem + Erlotinib vs GEM	6.2 vs 5.9	3.7 vs 3.5	Positive
Harder et al[29], 2012	17/metastatic HER2+	II	Capecitabine + Trastuzumab	6.9	12.5	Negative
Safran et al[30], 2004	34/metastatic	II	Gemcitabine + Trastuzumab	7		Negative
Bodoky et al[31], 2012	70/advanced	II	Capecitabine vs Selumetinib	5 vs 5.4	88% vs 84%	Negative
Infante et al[32], 2014	160/metastatic	II RCT	GEM + Trametinib vs GEM	8.4 vs 6.7	-	Negative
Fuchs et al[33], 2015	322/metastatic	III RCT	GEM + Ganitumab vs GEM	7.2 vs 7	3.7 vs 3.6	Negative
McCaffery et al[34], 2013	84/metastatic	IIRCT	GEM+Ganitumab vs GEM	16 vs 5.9		Positive
Kindler et al[35], 2012	125/metastatic	II RCT	GEM + Ganitumab vs GEM + Conatumumab vs GEM	8.7 vs 7.5 vs 5.9	5.1 vs 4 vs 2	Positive
Bramhall et al[36], 2002	239/advanced	RCT	GEM + Marimastat vs GEM	165.5 d	92.5 d	Negative
De Jesus-Acosta et al[37], 2014	17/metastatic second line therapy	I	GEM+ inhibitor γ secretase	4	1.5	Positive
Goldstein et al[38], 2015	861/metastatic	III RCT	GEM + Nab-paclitaxel vs GEM	8.7 vs 6.6	-	Positive
Hosein et al[39], 2013	19/advanced second line therapy	II	GEM + Nab-paclitaxel	7.3	-	Positive
Pant et al[40], 2014	30/advanced locally	II	GEM + Capecitabine Bevacizumab	10.4		Negative
Kindler et al[41], 2010	535/advanced	III RCT	GEM + Bevacizumab vs GEM	5.8 vs 5.9	3.8 vs 2.9	Negative
Crane et al[42], 2009	82/advanced	II	RT + capecitabine+bevacizumab, followed by GEM + bevacizumab	11.9		Negative
Ko et al[43], 2010	36/metastatic GEM refractory	II	Bevacizumab + Erlotinib	102 d		Negative
Van Cutsem et al[44], 2009	607/metastatic	III RCT	GEM + erlotinib + bevacizumab vs GEM + erlotinib	7.1 vs 6	4.6 vs 3.6	Negative
IokaT et al[45], 2015	632/advanced	III RCT	GEM + axitinib vs GEM	5.1 vs 5.4	-	Negative
Spano et al[46], 2008	103/advanced and metastatic	II RCT	GEM + axitinib vs GEM	6.9 vs 5.6	-	Negative
Kindler et al[47], 2011	632/advanced or metastatic	III RCT	GEM + axitinib vs GEM	8.5 vs 8.3	-	Negative
Rougier et al[48], 2013	427/metastatic	III RCT	GEM + Aflibercept vs GEM	6.5 vs 7.8	3.7 vs 3.7	Negative
Chiorean et al[49], 2014	27/advanced		GEM + Sorafenib followed by RT + GEM	12.6	10.6	Negative
Cascinu et al[50], 2014	144/advanced	II RCT	GEM + Cisplatin + Sorafenib vs GEM + Cisplatin	7.5 vs 8.3	4.3 vs 4.5	Negative
Gonçalves et al[51], 2012	104/advanced or metastatic	IIIRCT	GEM + Sorafenib vs GEM	5.7 vs 3.8	9.2 vs 8	Negative

OS: Overall survival; PFS: Progression free survival; RCT: Randomized control trial; Advanced diseases: Locally advanced and metastatic; RT: Radiotherapy; GEM: Gemcitabine.