Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 103(27): e38459, 2024 Jul 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38968520

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy could significantly improve the prognosis of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy. Anlotinib is effective, tolerable, and convenient in administration as a third-line treatment for NSCLC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with anlotinib after platinum-based induction chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This pooled analysis of 2 multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trials (ALTER-L014 and ALTER-L011) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and without known sensitive mutations in China between September 2018 and January 2021. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were objective response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The data of 23 patients were pooled, with 15 from ALTER-L014 and 8 from ALTER-L011. At the cutoff date of June 13, 2021, the median progression-free survival since the start of maintenance therapy was 5.95 (95% confidence interval, 4.30-8.80) months. Nineteen patients had stable disease, 1 had a partial response and 3 had progressive disease. The objective response rate was 4.35%, while disease control rate was 86.96%. The median overall survival of the patients since the start of maintenance therapy was 18.60 (95% confidence interval, 6.87-22.80) months. The incidence of adverse events of grade ≥ 3 was 21.7%. CONCLUSION: Anlotinib might offer a new option for maintenance treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC without known sensitive mutations after standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.


Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Indoles , Quimioterapia de Inducción , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Quinolinas , Humanos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/mortalidad , Indoles/uso terapéutico , Indoles/administración & dosificación , Indoles/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Femenino , Quinolinas/uso terapéutico , Quinolinas/administración & dosificación , Quinolinas/efectos adversos , Anciano , Quimioterapia de Inducción/métodos , Quimioterapia de Mantención/métodos , Adulto , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico
2.
Cancer Commun (Lond) ; 2024 Aug 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39161079

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the optimal radiotherapy regimen, particularly in terms of total dose and planned range of irradiation field, remains unclear. This phase III clinical trial aimed to compare the survival benefits between different radiation doses and different target fields. METHODS: This trial compared two aspects of radiation treatment, total dose and field, using a two-by-two factorial design. The high-dose (HD) group received 59.4 Gy radiation, and the standard-dose (SD) group received 50.4 Gy. The involved field irradiation (IFI) group and elective nodal irradiation (ENI) group adopted different irradiation ranges. The participants were assigned to one of the four groups (HD+ENI, HD+IFI, SD+ENI and SD+IFI). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). The synergy indexwas used to measure the interaction effect between dose and field. RESULTS: The interaction analysis did not reveal significant synergistic effects between the dose and irradiation field. In comparison to the target field, patients in IFI or ENI showed similar OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.23, p = 0.930) and PFS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.25). The HD treatment did not show significantly prolonged OS compared with SD (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.72-1.11, p = 0.318), but it suggested improved PFS (25.2 months to 18.0 months). Among the four groups, the HD+IFI group presented the best survival, while the SD+IFI group had the worst prognosis. No significant difference in the occurrence of severe adverse events was found in dose or field comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: IFI demonstrated similar treatment efficacy to ENI in CCRT of ESCC. The HD demonstrated improved PFS, but did not significantly improve OS. The dose escalation based on IFI (HD+IFI) showed better therapeutic efficacy than the current recommendation (SD+ENI) and is worth further validation.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA