4.5 Article

A phase II multicenter study of ipilimumab with or without dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced melanoma

期刊

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 489-498

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-009-9376-8

关键词

Metastatic melanoma; Ipilimumab; CTLA-4; Immune therapy; Dacarbazine

资金

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Ipilimumab is a fully human, anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated antitumor activity in advanced melanoma. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab alone and in combination with dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with unresectable, metastatic melanoma. Methods: Chemotherapy-na < ve patients were randomized in this multicenter, phase II study to receive ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks for four doses either alone or with up to six 5-day courses of DTIC at 250 mg/m(2)/day. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate. Results: Seventy-two patients were treated per-protocol (ipilimumab plus DTIC, n = 35; ipilimumab, n = 37). The objective response rate was 14.3% (95% CI, 4.8-30.3) with ipilimumab plus DTIC and was 5.4% (95% CI, 0.7-18.2) with ipilimumab alone. At a median follow-up of 20.9 and 16.4 months for ipilimumab plus DTIC (n = 32) and ipilimumab alone (n = 32), respectively, median overall survival was 14.3 months (95% CI, 10.2-18.8) and 11.4 months (95% CI, 6.1-15.6); 12-month, 24-month, and 36-month survival rates were 62%, 24% and 20% for the ipilimumab plus DTIC group and were 45%, 21% and 9% for the ipilimumab alone group, respectively. Immune-related adverse events were, in general, medically manageable and occurred in 65.7% of patients in the combination group versus 53.8% in the monotherapy group, with 17.1% and 7.7% a parts per thousand yengrade 3, respectively. Conclusion: Ipilimumab therapy resulted in clinically meaningful responses in advanced melanoma patients, and the results support further investigations of ipilimumab in combination with DTIC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据