4.7 Article

Two-dose-level confirmatory study of the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of everolimus in Chinese patients with advanced solid tumors

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1756-8722-4-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This phase I, randomized, multicenter, open-label study investigated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of the oral mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus in Chinese patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: A total of 24 patients with advanced breast cancer (n = 6), gastric cancer (n = 6), non-small cell lung cancer (n = 6), or renal cell carcinoma (n = 6) who were refractory to/unsuitable for standard therapy were randomized 1: 1 to oral everolimus 5 or 10 mg/day. Primary end points were pharmacokinetic parameters and safety and tolerability. Pharmacokinetic 24-h profiles were measured on day 15; trough level was measured on days 2, 8, 15, 16, and 22. Tolerability was assessed continuously. This final analysis was performed after all patients had received 6 months of study drug or had discontinued. Results: Everolimus was absorbed rapidly; median T-max was 3 h (range, 1-4) and 2 h (range, 0.9-6) in the 5 and 10 mg/day groups, respectively. Pharmacokinetic parameters increased dose proportionally from the 5 and 10 mg/day doses. Steady-state levels were achieved by day 8 or earlier. The most common adverse events suspected to be related to everolimus therapy were increased blood glucose (16.7% and 41.7%) and fatigue (16.7% and 33.3%) in the everolimus 5 and 10 mg/day dose cohorts, respectively. Best tumor response was stable disease in 10 (83%) and 6 (50%) patients in the 5 and 10 mg/day groups, respectively. Conclusions: Everolimus 5 or 10 mg/day was well tolerated in Chinese patients with advanced solid tumors. The observed safety and pharmacokinetic profile of everolimus from this study were consistent with previous studies.

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