4.2 Article

Phase 2 open-label study of weekly docosahexaenoic acid-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma

Journal

MELANOMA RESEARCH
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 507-510

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e3283403ce9

Keywords

chemotherapy; melanoma; paclitaxel; uveal

Funding

  1. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals Inc., Shirley, New York, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)-paclitaxel is a taxane with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. We investigated the safety and response rate of DHA-paclitaxel weekly in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Chemotherapy-naive and previously treated patients were eligible for this open-label phase II study. DHA-paclitaxel (500mg/m(2)/week) was administered by a 1-hour intravenous infusion for five consecutive weeks in a 6-weeks cycle. Response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors every 6 weeks. Twenty-two patients were enrolled. The patients' median age was 56 years (range: 33-79 years). Nine patients had a systemic therapy for metastatic disease earlier. The median number of treatment cycles was 1 (range 1-7 cycles). One chemonaive patient with liver metastases had partial response lasting for 5 months. Seven patients (32%) had stable disease with a median duration of 3 months (range: 3-7 months). The median overall survival was 9.8 months. Neutropenia (23%) and musculoskeletal pain (10%) were the most common grade 3 and grade 4 toxicities. As a single-agent therapy, DHA-paclitaxel is safe and well-tolerated in metastatic uveal melanoma patients. Its efficacy in this disease is limited with 32% of patients achieving stable disease. Further evaluation of DHA-paclitaxel in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents and/or targeted agents may improve its antitumor activity. Melanoma Res 20: 507-510 (C) 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available