4.4 Article

Medullary thyroid cancer treated with vandetanib: predictors of a longer and durable response

期刊

ENDOCRINE-RELATED CANCER
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 97-110

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/ERC-19-0259

关键词

medullary thyroid cancer; RET; vandetanib; calcitonin; tyrosine kinase inhibitors

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro [21790]
  2. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco [AIFA-201602365049]
  3. [PRA_2018_27]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vandetanib is an important treatment option for advanced metastatic medullary thyroid cancer. The aims of this study were to evaluate the predictors of both a longer response to vandetanib and the outcome. Medical records of 79 medullary thyroid cancer patients treated with vandetanib at our center were analysed. Twenty-five patients were treated for <12 months, 54 were treated for >= 12 months and 24 of these latter were treated for >= 48 months (short-, long- and very long-term). The median progression free survival of the long and very long-term treated patients was significantly longer than in the ZETA trial. When comparing the groups of short - and long-term treated patients the only significant difference was that these latter were less frequently previously treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. However, the long-term treated patients had a younger age, both at diagnosis and enrolment, which was statistically significant in the very long-term treated patients. In the long-term treated group, younger age, enrolment for symptoms and development of adverse events were significantly correlated with a better outcome. The enrolment for symptoms remained the only statistically significant predictor of a good outcome in the very long-term treated patients. In conclusion, early treatment with vandetanib, when patients are younger, with a good ECOG performance status and symptomatic disease, not necessarily progressing for RECIST, seem to be the best predictors of a longer and durable response. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

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