4.7 Article

Phase II Trial of the Combination of Bevacizumab and Erlotinib in Patients Who Have Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 843-850

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3301

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The study objective was to determine the proportion of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with the combination of bevacizumab (B) and erlotinib (E) who were alive and progression free at 16 weeks (16-week progression-free survival [PFS16]) of continuous therapy. Secondary objectives included response rate, median PFS, survival, and toxicity. Patients and Methods Patients who had advanced HCC that was not amenable to surgical or regional therapies, up to one prior systemic treatment; Childs-Pugh score A or B liver function; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, 1, or 2 received B 10 mg/kg every 14 days and E 150 mg orally daily, continuously, for 28-day cycles. Tumor response was evaluated every 2 cycles by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group criteria. A total of 40 patients were treated. Results The primary end point of PFS16 was 62.5%. Ten patients achieved a partial response for a confirmed overall response rate (intent-to-treat) of 25%. The median PFSevent was 39 weeks (95% CI, 26 to 45 weeks; 9.0 months), and the median overall survival was 68 weeks (95% CI, 48 to 78 weeks; 15.65 months). Grades 3 to 4 drug-related toxicity included fatigue (n = 8; 20%), hypertension (n = 6; 15%), diarrhea (n = 4; 10%) elevated transaminases (n = 4; 10%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n = 5; 12.5%), wound infection (n = 2; 5%) thrombocytopenia (n = 1; 2.5%), and proteinuria, hyperbilirubinemia, back pain, hyperkalemia, and anorexia (n = 1 each). Conclusion The combination of B + E in patients who had advanced HCC showed significant, clinically meaningful antitumor activity. B + E warrant additional evaluation in randomized controlled trials.

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