4.7 Article

Combined-modality therapy with gemcitabine and radiotherapy as a bladder preservation strategy: Results of a phase I trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 13, 页码 2540-2545

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.070

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [2P30 CA 46592-14] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose We conducted a phase I trial of gemcitabine given twice weekly with concurrent radiotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients and Methods Eligible patients underwent maximal transurethral resection of their bladder tumors followed by twice-weekly infusion of gemcitabine with 2 Gy/d concurrent radiotherapy to the bladder, for a total of 60 Gy over 6 weeks. The starting dose of gemcitabine was 10 mg/m(2) with subsequent dose levels of 20, 27, 30, and 33 mg/m(2). The primary end point was the determination of the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of twice weekly gemcitabine with concurrent radiotherapy. Secondary end points included assessment of toxicity associated with combined-modality therapy and initial assessment of the rate of bladder preservation. Results Twenty-four patients were enrolled and 23 were assessable for toxicity and response. No significant toxicity was demonstrated at the 10 or 20 mg/m(2) twice-weekly doses. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred in two of three patients treated at 33 mg/m(2). Intermediate dose levels of 27 and 30 mg/m(2) were then evaluated. The MTD of gemcitabine was 27 mg/m(2). The DLT was systemic, manifested as an elevation in liver function tests, malaise, and edema, Fifteen of 23 patients (65%) are alive with bladders intact and no evidence of recurrent disease at a median follow-up of 43 months. Conclusion Twice-weekly gemcitabine with concurrent radiotherapy at 2 Gy/d to a total dose of 60 Gy is well-tolerated. The MTD of gemcitabine is 27 mg/m(2). There is a high rate of bladder preservation in this selected group of patients. (C) 2004 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