4.7 Article

Phase II Trial of Ixabepilone As Second-Line Treatment in Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Trial 129-P

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 19, 页码 3104-3108

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.6995

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA 27469, CA 37517]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose A phase II study was conducted to determine the response rate of ixabepilone (BMS-247550, National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supplied agent investigational new drug No. 59,699) in patients with persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer who have progressed despite standard therapy. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer and measurable disease. One prior chemotherapeutic regimen, which could have included either paclitaxel or docetaxel, was allowed. Patients received ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression or until unacceptable toxicity occurred. Results Fifty-two patients were entered on the study, and 50 of these were eligible. The median age was 64 years (range, 40 to 83 years). Prior treatment included radiation in 21 patients (42%) and hormonal therapy in eight patients (16%). All patients had prior chemotherapy, and 47 (94%) received prior paclitaxel therapy. The overall response rate was 12%; one patient achieved a complete remission (2%), and five achieved partial remission (10%). Stable disease for at least 8 weeks was noted in 30 patients (60%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months, and the 6-month PFS was 20%. Major grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia (52%), leukopenia (48%), gastrointestinal (24%), neurologic (18%), constitutional (20%), infection (16%), and anemia (14%). Conclusion In a cohort of women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer who were previously treated with paclitaxel, ixabepilone showed modest activity of limited duration as a second-line agent.

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

4.7
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