4.7 Article

Feasibility and tolerability of sintilimab plus anlotinib as the second-line therapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancers: An open-label, single-arm, phase II clinical trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 152, 期 8, 页码 1648-1658

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34372

关键词

advanced biliary tract cancers; anlotinib; phase II study; second line; sintilimab

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the feasibility and tolerability of sintilimab plus anlotinib as second-line treatment for advanced BTC patients and found that this regimen showed encouraging anti-tumor activity. Genomic profiling and gut microbiome were explored as potential biomarkers for this regimen.
Patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) were associated with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options after first-line therapy currently. In this study, we sought to evaluate the feasibility and tolerability of sintilimab plus anlotinib as the second-line treatment for patients with advanced BTC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC and failed after the first-line treatment were recruited. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Simultaneously, association between clinical outcomes and genomic profiling and gut microbiome were explored to identify the potential biomarkers for this regimen. Twenty patients were consecutively enrolled and received study therapy. The trail met its primary endpoint with a median OS of 12.3 months (95% CI: 10.1-14.5). Only four (20%) patients were observed of the grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and no grade 4 or 5 TRAEs were detected. Mutation of AGO2 was correlated with a significantly longer OS. Abundance of Proteobacteria was associated with inferior clinical response. Therefore, sintilimab plus anlotinib demonstrated encouraging anti-tumor activity with a tolerable safety profile and deserved to be investigated in larger randomized trials for patients with advanced BTC subsequently.

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