4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine in advanced transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelium: A phase II Hoosier Oncology Group Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 1185-1191

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.089

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with advanced transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelial tract. Patients and Methods patients with advanced unresectable TCC were enrolled onto this multicenter, community-based, phase II trial. Initially, patients were treated with paclitaxel 110 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. Patients who had an objective response or stable disease continued treatment for a maximum of six courses. Paclitaxel was decreased to 90 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine was decreased to 800 mg/m(2) for the last 12 patients because of a concerning incidence of pulmonary toxicity in the first 24 patients. Results Thirty-six patients were enrolled between September 1998 and March 2003. Twenty-four patients received the higher doses of paclitaxel and gemcitabine, and 12 patients received the lower doses. Twenty-five (69.4%) of 36 patients had major responses to treatment, including 15 patients (41.7%) with complete responses. With a median follow-up time of 38.7 months, the median survival time was 15.8 months. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included granulocytopenia (36.1%), thrombocytopenia (8.3%), and neuropathy (116.7%). Five patients (13.9%) had grades 3 to 5 pulmonary toxicity, and one patient had grade 2 pulmonary toxicity. Conclusion Weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine is an active regimen in the treatment of patients with advanced TCC. However, because of the high incidence of pulmonary toxicity associated with this schedule of paclitaxel and gemcitabine, we recommend against the use of this regimen in this patient population.

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