4.7 Article

A phase II study on metastatic breast cancer patients treated with weekly vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab according to HER2 expression: changing the natural history of HER2-positive disease

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 630-636

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdj110

关键词

weekly vinorelbine; trastuzumab; HER2; metastatic breast cancer

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To observe whether in pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients with HER2-positive disease vinorelbine plus trastuzumab can produce different overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) from women with HER2-negative tumors treated with vinorelbine alone. Methods: Between June 2000 and January 2004, 68 consecutive women were enrolled: 33 patients received vinorelbine (V) alone, while 35 patients were given trastuzumab plus vinorelbine (T+V) according to HER2 expression determined by immunohistochemistry. In tumors scored +2, HER2 gene amplification was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Results: In patients treated with V (HER2-negative tumors) the ORR was 27.3%, while in those given T+V (HER2 positive tumors) the ORR was 51.4%. The median duration of response was 8 months for women treated with V and 10 months for those who received T+V. Patients given T+V had a longer TTP (9 months) and OS (27 months) than those receiving V alone (6 months and 22 months respectively). Toxicity was mild in both groups. Concerning cardiotoxicity in T+V group, 7 patients (20%) had left ventricular systolic disfunction. Conclusion: Our data suggest that trastuzumab can change the natural history of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. In fact, when treated with trastuzumab, women with HER2-positive disease had better prognosis than patients with HER2-negative tumors. Conducting a formal phase III trial comparing vinorelbine alone vs vinorelbine plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer women could be debatable.

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