4.7 Article

Activity and safety of NGR-hTNF, a selective vascular-targeting agent, in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 103, Issue 6, Pages 837-844

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605858

Keywords

NGR-hTNF; vascular-targeting agent; hepatocellular carcinoma

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly vascularised and poor-prognosis tumour. NGR-hTNF is a vascular-targeting agent consisting of human tumour necrosis factor-alpha fused to the tumour-homing peptide NGR, which is able to selectively bind an aminopeptidase N overexpressed on tumour blood vessels. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with advanced-stage disease resistant to either locoregional (59%; range, 1-3), systemic treatments (52%; range, 1-3) or both (33%) received NGR-hTNF 0.8 mu g m(-2) once every 3 weeks. The primary aim of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: No grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities were noted. Common toxicity included mild-to-moderate, short-lived chills (63%). Median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.7-2.9). A complete response ongoing after 20 months was observed in a sorafenib-refractory patient and a partial response in a Child-Pugh class-B patient, yielding a response rate of 7%. Six patients (22%) experienced stable disease. The disease control rate (DCR) was 30% and was maintained for a median PFS time of 4.3 months. Median survival was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.5-10.2). In a subset of 12 sorafenib-resistant patients, the response rate was 8% and the median survival was 9.5 months. CONCLUSION: NGR-hTNF was well tolerated and showed single-agent activity in HCC. Further investigation in HCC is of interest. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 837-844. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605858 www.bjcancer.com Published online 17 August 2010 (C) 2010 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