4.4 Article

Efficacy and Safety of Standardized Allergen-Removed Rhus verniciflua Stokes Extract in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Korean Single-Center Experience

期刊

ONCOLOGY
卷 81, 期 5-6, 页码 312-318

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000334695

关键词

Pancreatic cancer; Rhus verniciflua Stokes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pancreatic cancer has the worst prognosis because of poor response to conventional therapy. We investigated the clinical feasibility of the standardized allergen-removed Rhus verniciflua Stokes (aRVS) extract as a potential therapeutic agent for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: From July 2006 to June 2010, patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were checked in our institution. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 42 patients were eligible for the final analysis. Overall survival, clinical benefit and adverse events of these patients treated with aRVS in the aftercare period were determined. Results: In May 2011, 39 patients had died and the remaining 3 patients were alive with evidence of disease. The mean RVS administration period was 3.86 months (95% confidence interval 2.52-5.20). The median overall survival for the entire population was 7.87 months (95% confidence interval 5.14-10.59), and the 1-year survival rate was 26.2%, which is compatible with external controls. Using univariate and multivariate analyses, aRVS treatment including performance status and prognostic index significantly affected overall survival. A clinical benefit response was also shown by aRVS treatment which was not dependent on concurrent chemotherapy. Adverse reactions to aRVS treatment were mostly mild and self-limiting. Conclusions: The standardized aRVS extract might be beneficial for patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer since it positively affected overall survival and clinical symptoms without significant adverse effects. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.4
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