4.7 Article

A multinational phase II trial of bevacizumab with low-dose interferon-α2a as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: BEVLiN

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 9, 页码 2396-2402

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt228

关键词

renal cell carcinoma; angiogenesis; bevacizumab; immunotherapy; interferon; VEGF

类别

资金

  1. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
  2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Avastin and Roferon in Renal Cell Carcinoma (AVOREN) demonstrated efficacy for bevacizumab plus interferon-alpha 2a (IFN; 9 MIU tiw) in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We evaluated bevacizumab with low-dose IFN in mRCC to determine whether clinical benefit could be maintained with reduced toxicity. BEVLiN was an open-label, single-arm, multinational, phase II trial. Nephrectomized patients with treatment-naive, clear cell mRCC and favourable/intermediate Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center scores received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and IFN (3 MIU thrice weekly) until disease progression. Descriptive comparisons with AVOREN patients having favourable/intermediate MSKCC scores treated with bevacizumab plus IFN (9 MIU) were made. Primary end points were grade >= 3 IFN-associated adverse events (AEs) and progression-free survival (PFS). All grade >= 3 AEs and bevacizumab/IFN-related grade 1-2 AEs occurring from first administration until 28 days after last treatment were reported. A total of 146 patients were treated; the median follow-up was 29.4 months. Any-grade and grade >= 3 IFN-associated AEs occurred in 53.4% and 10.3% of patients, respectively. The median PFS and overall survival were 15.3 [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.7-18.0] and 30.7 months (95% CI: 25.7-not reached), respectively. The ORR was 28.8%. Compared with a historical control AVOREN subgroup, low-dose IFN with bevacizumab resulted in a reduction in incidence rates of IFN-related AEs, without compromising efficacy [NCT00796757].

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