4.6 Article

Long-term efficacy and safety of sonidegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: 42-month analysis of the phase II randomized, double-blind BOLT study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 182, 期 6, 页码 1369-1378

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.18552

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis
  2. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Princeton, NJ, U.S.A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) exhibit aberrant activation of the hedgehog pathway. Sonidegib is a hedgehog pathway inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) and metastatic BCC (mBCC) based on primary results of the BOLT study [Basal Cell Carcinoma Outcomes with LDE225 (sonidegib) Treatment]. Objectives This is the final 42-month analysis of the BOLT study, evaluating the efficacy and safety of sonidegib. Methods Adults with no prior hedgehog pathway inhibitor therapy were randomized in a 1 : 2 ratio to sonidegib 200 mg or 800 mg once daily. Treatment continued for up to 42 months or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, study termination or withdrawal of consent. The primary efficacy end point was the objective response rate (ORR) by central review, assessed at baseline; weeks 5, 9 and 17; then subsequently every 8 or 12 weeks during years 1 or 2, respectively. Safety end points included adverse event monitoring and reporting. Results The study enrolled 230 patients, 79 and 151 in the 200-mg and 800-mg groups, respectively, of whom 8% and 3.3% remained on treatment by the 42-month cutoff, respectively. The ORRs by central review were 56% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43-68] for laBCC and 8% (95% CI 0 center dot 2-36) for mBCC in the 200-mg group and 46 center dot 1% (95% CI 37 center dot 2-55 center dot 1) for laBCC and 17% (95% CI 5-39) for mBCC in the 800-mg group. No new safety concerns emerged. Conclusions Sonidegib demonstrated sustained efficacy and a manageable safety profile. The final BOLT results support sonidegib as a viable treatment option for laBCC and mBCC.

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