4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Randomized phase III trial of capecitabine compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 792-799

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.098

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This randomized phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of capecitabine with or without bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor, in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine (2,500 mg/m(2)/d) twice daily on day 1 through 14 every 3 weeks, alone or in combination with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) on day 1. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), as determined by an independent review facility. Results From November 2000 to March 2002, 462 patients were enrolled. Treatment arms were balanced. No significant differences were found in the incidence of diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, thromboembolic events, or serious bleeding episodes between treatment groups. Of other grade 3 or 4 adverse events, only hypertension requiring treatment (17.9% v 0.5%) was more frequent in patients receiving bevacizumab. Combination therapy significantly increased the response rates (19.8% v 9.1% ; P = .001); however, this did not result in a longer PFS (4.86 v 4.17 months; hazard ratio = 0.98). Overall survival (15.1 v 14.5 months) and time to deterioration in quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment Of Cancer Treatment-Breast were comparable in both treatment groups. Conclusion Bevacizumab was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated patient population. Although the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine produced a significant increase in response rates, this did not translate into improved PFS or overall survival. (C) 2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

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