4.6 Article

A Phase II Trial of Sorafenib in Metastatic Melanoma with Tissue Correlates

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015588

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Health and Human Service [N01-CM-17103, N01-CM-62204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Sorafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma was explored in this multi-institutional phase II study. In correlative studies the impact of sorafenib on cyclin D1 and Ki67 was assessed. Methodology/Principal Findings: Thirty-six patients treatment-naive advanced melanoma patients received sorafenib 400 mg p.o. twice daily continuously. Tumor BRAF V600E mutational status was determined by routine DNA sequencing and mutation-specific PCR (MSPCR). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining for cyclin D1 and Ki67 was performed on available pre- and post treatment tumor samples. The main toxicities included diarrhea, alopecia, rash, mucositis, nausea, hand-foot syndrome, and intestinal perforation. One patient had a RECIST partial response (PR) lasting 175 days. Three patients experienced stable disease (SD) with a mean duration of 37 weeks. Routine BRAF V600E sequencing yielded 27 wild-type (wt) and 6 mutant tumors, whereas MSPCR identified 12 wt and 18 mutant tumors. No correlation was seen between BRAF V600E mutational status and clinical activity. No significant changes in expression of cyclin D1 or Ki67 with sorafenib treatment were demonstrable in the 15 patients with pre-and post-treatment tumor samples. Conclusions/Significance: Sorafenib monotherapy has limited activity in advanced melanoma patients. BRAF V600E mutational status of the tumor was not associated with clinical activity and no significant effect of sorafenib on cyclin D1 or Ki67 was seen, suggesting that sorafenib is not an effective BRAF inhibitor or that additional signaling pathways are equally important in the patients who benefit from sorafenib. registration:

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