4.5 Article

A phase II randomized study of cetuximab and bevacizumab alone or in combination with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

期刊

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 1597-1606

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10637-011-9691-8

关键词

Cetuximab; EGFR; Bevacizumab; VEGF; Gemcitabine; Pancreatic cancer

资金

  1. ImClone LLC
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus cetuximab with or without gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, previously untreated, were randomized to bevacizumab (10 mg/kg q2w) plus cetuximab (400/250 mg/m(2) initial/weekly), either with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) weekly x 3 of 4 weeks). Tumor assessments were performed q8w. Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Sixty-one patients were randomized to Arm A (n = 30) or Arm B (n = 31). Median treatment duration was 9 weeks in Arm A and 8 weeks in Arm B (range, 2.0-40.4). Patients in Arm A had median PFS and overall survival values of 3.55 months and 5.41 months, respectively, compared to 1.91 months and 4.17 months in Arm B. The study closed early due to lack of sufficient efficacy in both treatment arms. Although both regimens were well tolerated, patients treated with gemcitabine experienced more grade 3-4 toxicities, including proteinuria and thromboembolic events. The combination of cetuximab and bevacizumab did not result in promising activity with or without gemcitabine, suggesting that a strategy of dual EGFR/VEGF inhibition in pancreatic cancer does not warrant further development. To our knowledge, this is one of the first trials to evaluate a completely noncytotoxic regimen in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00326911).

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