4.7 Article

A phase I open-label dose-escalation study of oral BIBF 1120 combined with standard paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced gynecological malignancies

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 370-375

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdp506

关键词

BIBF 1120; carboplatin; gynecological malignancies; paclitaxel; phase I

类别

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim [minor < $10 000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of the phase I dose-escalation study was to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BIBF 1120, an oral triple angiokinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet derived growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors, combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin. Patients and methods: Patients with advanced gynecological malignancies received BIBF 1120 twice-daily (b.i.d.) continuously at 100, 150, 200 or 250 mg, combined with paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve 5 min.mg/ml) every 3 weeks. The MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical activity were evaluated. Results: Twenty-two patients were treated. Three experienced dose-limiting toxic effects in the first treatment cycle: 1 of 13 at 200 mg b.i.d. BIBF 1120 [diarrhea, common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grade 3]; two of two at 250 mg b.i.d. BIBF 1120 (elevated alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, CTCAE grade 3/4). The MTD was defined as 200 mg b.i.d. Principal adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders. No clinically relevant drug-drug interaction was observed after 20 days treatment with 200 mg b.i.d. BIBF 1120 on the PK of paclitaxel or carboplatin and vice versa. Conclusions: The MTD of BIBF 1120 in a 20-day continuous dosing regimen with standard-dose paclitaxel and carboplatin was 200 mg b.i.d. This combination had an acceptable safety profile and no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Further evaluation of this combination is warranted in this indication.

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