4.7 Article

Flavopiridol in untreated or relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma: Results of a phase II study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 1740-1745

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.057

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To determine the response rate and toxicity of flovapiridol in patients with previously untreated or relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma. Patients and Methods: Adult patients with previously untreated or in first or second relapse of previously responsive mantle-cell lymphoma were given flavopiridol 50 mg/m(2)/d by intravenous bolus for 3 consecutive days every 21 days with antidiarrheal prophylaxis. Flavopiridol was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or stable disease for four cycles. Disease was reassessed every two cycles. Results: From 33 registered patients, 30 were eligible after pathology review, 30 were assessable for toxicity, and 28 were assessable for response. A median of four cycles of treatment was administered; 90% of patients received at least 90% of planned dose-intensity. No complete responses were seen; three patients had a partial response (11%), 20 patients had stable disease (71%), and five patients had progressive disease (18%). The median duration of response was 3.3 months (range, 2.8 to 13.2 months). The most common toxicities were diarrhea (97%), fatigue (73%), nausea (47%), and vomiting (27%). At least one nonhematalogic grade 3 or 4 toxicity was seen in 14 patients (47%). Hematologic toxicity was modest. Conclusions: Flavopiridol given as a daily bolus for 3 consecutive days every 3 weeks has modest activity as a single agent for mantle-cell lymphoma. The number of stable and partial responses that was seen indicates that it is biologically active and may delay progression. Future studies in mantle-cell lymphoma should test this agent with other active agents and using different schedules.

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