4.7 Article

Genotype-Guided Dosing Study of FOLFIRI plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 918-924

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1012

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro [AIRC] [12214]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: UGT1A1*28 confers a higher risk of toxicity in patients treated with irinotecan. Patients with *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes might tolerate higher than standard doses of irinotecan. We aimed to identify the MTD of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes treated with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, and to determine whether bevacizumab alters irinotecan pharmacokinetics. Experimental Design: Previously untreated patients with mCRC (25*1/*1; 23*1/*28) were given FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab every 2 weeks. The irinotecan dose was escalated using a 3 + 3 design in each genotype group as follows: 260, 310, and 370 mg/m(2). The MTD was the highest dose at which <4/10 patients had a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and SN-38 were measured on days 1 to 3 (without bevacizumab) and 15 to 17 (with bevacizumab). Results: For *1/*1 patients, 2 DLTs were observed among 10 patients at 310 mg/m(2), while 370 mg/m(2) was not tolerated (2 DLTs in 4 patients). For *1/*28 patients, 2 DLTs were observed among 10 patients at 260 mg/m(2), while 310 mg/m(2) was not tolerated (4 DLTs in 10 patients). Neutropenia and diarrhea were the most common DLTs. Changes in the AUCs of irinotecan and SN-38 associated with bevacizumab treatment were marginal. Conclusions: The MTD of irinotecan in FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab is 310 mg/m(2) for UGT1A1 *1/*1 patients and 260 mg/m2 for *1/*28 patients. Bevacizumab does not alter the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan. The antitumor efficacy of these genotype-guided doses should be tested in future studies of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. (C)2016 AACR.

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

4.7
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