4.5 Review

Epothilones in epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer: a systematic review

期刊

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 2187-2198

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S77342

关键词

ovarian cancer; epothilone; patupilone; ixabepilone; systematic review

资金

  1. Hellenic Society for Medical Oncology (HeSMO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy; consequently, there is a need for effective therapies. Epothilones are microtubule-stabilizing agents that inhibit cell growth. Currently, patupilone and its four synthetic derivatives ixabepilone, BMS-310705, sagopilone, 20-desmethyl-20-methylsulfanyl epothilone B and epothilone D, as well as its derivative KOS-1584, are under clinical evaluation. This is the first systematic review conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines that synthesizes all available data emerging from trials and evaluates the efficacy and safety of epothilones in epithelial ovarian, primary fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. Despite the fact that epothilones have proven active in taxane-resistant settings in preclinical models, it is not yet clear from Phase II/III studies reviewed here that their clinical activity is superior to that of taxanes. Nevertheless, responses to epothilones have been observed in platinum-refractory/resistant ovarian cancer patients. Moreover, despite the shared mechanism of action of epothilones, their clinical profile seems clearly different, with diarrhea being the most common dose-limiting toxicity encountered with patupilone, whereas neutropenia and sensory neuropathy are the most common toxic effects observed with the other epothilones. In any case, randomized trials comparing epothilones with standard treatments seem warranted to define further the role of these agents, whereas biomarker analysis might further optimize patient selection.

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

4.5
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