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

Métodos Terapéuticos y Terapias MTCI
Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
World J Urol ; 35(2): 179-188, 2017 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27277600

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Current systemic treatment of targeted therapies, namely the vascular endothelial growth factor-antibody (VEGF-AB), VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, have improved progression-free survival and replaced non-specific immunotherapy with cytokines in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: A panel of experts convened to review currently available phase 3 data for mRCC treatment of approved agents, in addition to available EAU guideline data for a collaborative review as the plurality of substances offers different options of first-, second- and third-line treatment with potential sequencing. RESULTS: Sunitinib and pazopanib are approved treatments in first-line therapy for patients with favorable- or intermediate-risk clear cell RCC (ccRCC). Temsirolimus has proven benefit over interferon-alfa (IFN-α) in patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC). In the second-line treatment TKIs or mTOR inhibitors are treatment choices. Therapy options after TKI failure consist of everolimus and axitinib. Available third-line options consist of everolimus and sorafenib. Recently, nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD1) checkpoint inhibitor, improved overall survival benefit compared to everolimus after failure of one or two VEGFR-targeted therapies, which is likely to become the first established checkpoint inhibitor in mRCC. Data for the sequencing of agents remain limited. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high level of evidence for first and second-line treatment in mRCC, data for third-line therapy are limited. Possible sequences include TKI-mTOR-TKI or TKI-TKI-mTOR with the upcoming checkpoint inhibitors in perspective, which might settle a new standard of care after previous TKI therapy.


Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma de Células Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Axitinib , Árboles de Decisión , Everolimus/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Imidazoles/uso terapéutico , Indazoles/uso terapéutico , Indoles/uso terapéutico , Niacinamida/análogos & derivados , Niacinamida/uso terapéutico , Nivolumab , Compuestos de Fenilurea/uso terapéutico , Pirimidinas/uso terapéutico , Pirroles/uso terapéutico , Sirolimus/análogos & derivados , Sirolimus/uso terapéutico , Sorafenib , Sulfonamidas/uso terapéutico , Sunitinib
2.
BJU Int ; 113(3): 429-36, 2014 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24053564

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and cisplatin in combination with sorafenib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized phase II trial. Its primary aim was to show an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.5 months by adding sorafenib to conventional chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The patients included in the trial had histologically confirmed locally advanced and/or metastatic urothelial cancer of the bladder or upper urinary tract. Chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1250 mg/qm on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (70 mg/qm on day 1) repeated every 21 days, was administered to all patients in a double-blind randomization of additional sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) vs placebo (two tablets twice daily) on days 3-21. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity, the maximum number of cycles was limited to eight. The response assessment was repeated after every two cycles. RESULTS: Between October 2006 and October 2010, 98 of 132 planned patients were recruited. Nine patients were ineligible. The final analysis included 40 patients in the sorafenib and 49 patients in the placebo arm. There were no significant differences between the two arms concerning ORR (sorafenib: complete response [CR] 12.5%, partial response [PR] 40%; placebo: CR 12%, PR 35%), median PFS (sorafenib: 6.3 months, placebo: 6.1 months) or OS (sorafenib: 11.3 months, placebo: 10.6 months). Toxicity was moderately higher in the sorafenib arm. Diarrrhoea occurred significantly more often in the sorafenib arm and hand-foot syndrome occurred only in the sorafenib arm. The study was closed prematurely because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSION: Although the addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy showed acceptable toxicity, the trial failed to show a 4.5 months improvement in PFS.


Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Urológicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Cisplatino/administración & dosificación , Cisplatino/efectos adversos , Desoxicitidina/administración & dosificación , Desoxicitidina/efectos adversos , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Niacinamida/administración & dosificación , Niacinamida/efectos adversos , Niacinamida/análogos & derivados , Compuestos de Fenilurea/administración & dosificación , Compuestos de Fenilurea/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Sorafenib , Resultado del Tratamiento , Neoplasias Urológicas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Urológicas/patología , Gemcitabina
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA