Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur J Cancer ; 70: 146-155, 2017 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27817944

RESUMO

AIM: MERiDiAN evaluated plasma vascular endothelial growth factor-A (pVEGF-A) prospectively as a predictive biomarker for bevacizumab efficacy in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: In this double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial, eligible patients had HER2-negative mBC previously untreated with chemotherapy. pVEGF-A was measured before randomisation to paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 with either placebo or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, repeated every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. Stratification factors were baseline pVEGF-A, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status and geographic region. Co-primary end-points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat and pVEGF-Ahigh populations. RESULTS: Of 481 patients randomised (242 placebo-paclitaxel; 239 bevacizumab-paclitaxel), 471 received study treatment. The stratified PFS hazard ratio was 0.68 (99% confidence interval, 0.51-0.91; log-rank p = 0.0007) in the intent-to-treat population (median 8.8 months with placebo-paclitaxel versus 11.0 months with bevacizumab-paclitaxel) and 0.64 (96% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; log-rank p = 0.0038) in the pVEGF-Ahigh subgroup. The PFS treatment-by-VEGF-A interaction p value (secondary end-point) was 0.4619. Bevacizumab was associated with increased incidences of bleeding (all grades: 45% versus 27% with placebo), neutropenia (all grades: 39% versus 29%; grade ≥3: 25% versus 13%) and hypertension (all grades: 31% versus 13%; grade ≥3: 11% versus 4%). CONCLUSION: The significant PFS improvement with bevacizumab is consistent with previous placebo-controlled first-line trials in mBC. Results do not support using baseline pVEGF-A to identify patients benefitting most from bevacizumab. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01663727.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Inibidores da Angiogênese/administração & dosagem , Bevacizumab/administração & dosagem , Biomarcadores Tumorais/metabolismo , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Mama/metabolismo , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Paclitaxel/administração & dosagem , Estudos Prospectivos , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Fator A de Crescimento do Endotélio Vascular/antagonistas & inibidores , Fator A de Crescimento do Endotélio Vascular/metabolismo , Adulto Jovem
2.
Gynecol Oncol ; 138(1): 18-23, 2015 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25925990

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this multicenter, open label, randomized phase III study was to determine whether ixabepilone resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared with commonly used single-agent chemotherapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel) in women with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic endometrial cancer with at least one failed prior platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimen. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ixabepilone (40mg/m(2)), or either paclitaxel (175mg/m(2)) or doxorubicin (60mg/m(2)), every 21days. Patients that had previously received an anthracycline were randomized to ixabepilone or paclitaxel; all other patients were randomized to ixabepilone or doxorubicin. An interim analysis of futility for OS was planned. RESULTS: At the time of database lock, 496 patients were randomized to receive ixabepilone (n=248) or control (n=248); nine patients in the control arm were not treated. The interim analysis of futility for OS (219 events) favored the control chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=1.3 [95% confidence interval: 1.0-1.7], stratified log rank test P=0.0397), indicating that the study would not meet its primary objective. The study was discontinued based on the interim OS results. The frequency of adverse events was comparable between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary objective of improving OS in the ixabepilone arm compared to the control chemotherapy arm. A favorable risk/benefit ratio was not observed for ixabepilone versus control at the time of the interim analysis. The safety results were consistent with the known safety profiles of ixabepilone and control.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Doxorrubicina/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias do Endométrio/tratamento farmacológico , Epotilonas/uso terapêutico , Paclitaxel/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Taxa de Sobrevida
3.
Target Oncol ; 10(2): 255-65, 2015 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25195590

RESUMO

The First-Line Erbitux in Lung Cancer (FLEX) trial showed that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy followed by weekly cetuximab maintenance significantly improved survival in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The phase IIIb NSCLC Erbitux Trial (NEXT) trial (NCT00820755) investigated the efficacy and safety of weekly and every 2 weeks cetuximab maintenance therapy in this setting. Patients were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab, and those progression-free after four to six cycles were randomized to every 2 weeks (500 mg/m(2)) or weekly (250 mg/m(2)) cetuximab maintenance. Randomization was stratified for tumor histology and response status. The primary endpoint for a regimen would be reached if the lower boundary of the 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the 1-year survival rate exceeded 55 %. A planned 480 patients were to be randomized. However, enrollment was curtailed following a negative opinion from the European Medicines Agency with regard to the use of cetuximab in this setting. After combination therapy, 311/583 (53.3 %) patients without progression were randomized to maintenance therapy: 157 to every 2 weeks cetuximab and 154 to weekly cetuximab. Baseline characteristics were balanced between these groups and exposure to cetuximab was similar. The 1-year survival rate was 62.8 % (95 % CI, 54.7-70.0) for every 2 weeks cetuximab and 64.4 % (95 % CI, 56.2-71.4) for weekly cetuximab. Safety profiles were similar, manageable, and in line with expectations. Therefore, in patients with advanced NSCLC who were progression-free after four to six cycles of first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab, weekly and every 2 weeks cetuximab maintenance therapy were associated with similar survival outcomes.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Cetuximab/administração & dosagem , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Brasil , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/mortalidade , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/patologia , Cetuximab/efeitos adversos , Progressão da Doença , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Esquema de Medicação , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , Israel , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Quimioterapia de Manutenção , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Singapura , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA