4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Phase I-II prospective dose-escalating trial of lycopene in patients with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer after definitive local therapy

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 67, 期 6, 页码 1257-1261

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.035

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30-CA12197-2751] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To report a prospective trial of lycopene supplementation in biochemically relapsed prostate cancer. Methods. A total of 36 men with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer were enrolled in a dose-escalating, Phase I-II trial of lycopene supplementation. Six consecutive cohorts of 6 patients each received daily supplementation with 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 mg/day for 1 year. The serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and plasma levels of lycopene were measured at baseline and every 3 months. The primary endpoints were PSA response (defined as a 50% decrease in serum PSA from baseline), pharmacokinetics, and the toxicity/tolerability of this regimen. Results. A total of 36 patients were enrolled. The median age was 74 years (range 56 to 83), with a median serum PSA at entry of 4.4 ng/mL (range 0.8 to 24.9). No serum PSA responses were observed, and 37% of patients had PSA progression. The median time to progression was not reached. Toxicity was mild, with 1 patient discontinuing therapy because of diarrhea. Significant elevations of plasma lycopene were noted at 3 months and then appeared to plateau for all six dose levels. The plasma levels for doses between 15 and 90 mg/day were similar, with additional elevation only at 120 mg/day. Conclusions. Lycopene supplementation in men with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer is safe and well tolerated. The plasma levels of lycopene were similar for a wide dose range (15 to 90 mg/day) and plateaued by 3 months. Lycopene supplementation at the doses used in this study did not result in any discernible response in serum PSA.

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