4.5 Article

Phase II trial of flavopiridol, a cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor, in untreated metastatic malignant melanoma

期刊

INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 315-322

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:DRUG.0000026258.02846.1c

关键词

melanoma; flavopiridol; cyclin; cyclin-dependent kinase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To test the activity of the cyclin dependent kinase (cdk) inhibitor flavopiridol in malignant melanoma, a disease with frequent abnormalities of the cyclin dependent kinase system. Patients and methods: Patients had histologically proven, unidimensionally measurable malignant melanoma, incurable by standard therapy. Prior adjuvant immunotherapy was allowed, but patients were otherwise untreated for advanced disease. Flavopiridol was administered at a dose of 50 mg/m(2) IV over 1 hour daily x 3 days every 3 weeks. Patients were assessed for response every 2 cycles. Results: 17 patients were accrued over 5 months. No objective responses were documented in the 16 patients evaluable for response. Seven patients (44%) had stable disease after 2 cycles, with a median of 2.8 months (range 1.8-9.2). The most common treatment-related non-hematologic toxicities were diarrhea (82%), nausea (47%), fatigue (41%), anorexia (35%) and vomiting (29%). Most treatment-related toxicities were mild, except for diarrhea (grade 3 in 3 patients, grade 4 in 1 patient), nausea (grade 3 in 1 patient) and tumor pain (grade 3 in 1 patient). Hematologic toxicities were minimal, none worse than grade 2. Eighty-eight percent of patients received greater than or equal to90% planned dose intensity; 2 patients had dose reductions for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Conclusions: Flavopiridol is well tolerated at the dose regimen used in this study, with an acceptable (primarily GI) toxicity profile. Although 7 of the 16 patients had stable disease ranging from 1.8 to 9.2 months in duration, there was no evidence of significant clinical activity in malignant melanoma by objective response criteria.

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

4.5
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