4.7 Article

Phase II study of continuous daily sunitinib dosing in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 101, Issue 9, Pages 1543-1548

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605346

Keywords

non-small cell lung cancer; phase II; sunitinib; tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Categories

Funding

  1. Pfizer Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib malate (SUTENT) has promising single-agent activity given on Schedule 4/2 ( 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We examined the activity of sunitinib on a continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule in an open-label, multicentre phase II study in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC. Patients >= 18 years with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC after failure with platinum-based chemotherapy, received sunitinib 37.5 mg per day. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival ( OS), 1-year survival rate, and safety. RESULTS: Of 47 patients receiving sunitinib, one patient achieved a confirmed partial response ( ORR 2.1%(95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1, 11.3)) and 11 (23.4%) had stable disease (SD) >= 8 weeks. Five patients had SD>6 months. Median PFS was 11.9 weeks (95% CI 8.6, 14.1) and median OS was 37.1 weeks (95% CI 31.1, 69.7). The 1-year survival probability was 38.4% (95% CI 24.2, 52.5). Treatment was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile and time-to-event analyses, albeit relatively low response rate of 2%, suggest single-agent sunitinib on a CDD schedule may be a potential therapeutic agent for patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC. British Journal of Cancer ( 2009) 101, 1543-1548. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605346 www.bjcancer.com Published online 13 October 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available