4.6 Article

Phase I trial of vorinostat combined with bevacizumab and CPT-11 in recurrent glioblastoma

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 93-100

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nor187

关键词

bevacizumab; CPT-11; recurrent glioblastoma; vorinostat

资金

  1. Merck Research Laboratories
  2. Ben and Catherine Ivy Foundation
  3. American Cancer Society [RSG-11-029-01-CSM]
  4. US Army [W81XWH-08-2-0101]
  5. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A phase I study was conducted to determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for the combination of vorinostat with bevacizumab and CPT-11 in recurrent glioblastoma. Vorinostat was combined with bevacizumab and CPT-11 and was escalated using a standard 3 + 3 design. Vorinostat was escalated up to 2 actively investigated doses of this compound or until the MTD was identified on the basis of DLTs. Correlative science involving proteomic profiling of serial patient plasma samples was performed. Nineteen patients were treated. The MTD of vorinostat was established at 400 mg on days 1-7 and 15-21 every 28 days when combined with bevacizumab and CPT-11. Common toxicities were fatigue and diarrhea. DLTs included fatigue, hypertension/hypotension, and central nervous system ischemia. Although the MTD was established, CPT-11 dose reductions were common early in therapy. High-dose vorinostat had an improved progression-free survival and overall survival when compared with low-dose vorinostat. Serum proteomic profiling identified IGFBP-5 and PDGF-AA as markers for improved PFS and recurrence, respectively. A MTD for the combination of vorinostat with bevacizumab and CPT-11 has been established, although it has poor long-term tolerability. With the increased toxicities associated with CPT-11 coupled with its unclear clinical significance, investigating the efficacy of vorinostat combined with bevacizumab alone may represent a more promising strategy to evaluate in the context of a phase II clinical trial.

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

4.6
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