4.7 Article

Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study of recombinant human anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with advanced cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 843-850

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.843

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [MO1 RR750] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We investigated the safety and pharmacokinetics of a recombinant human monoclonal antibody ta vascular endothelial growth factor (rhuMAb VEGF) in patients with cancer. Patients and Methods Cohorts of patients with metastatic cancer having failed prior therapy entered a phase I trial of rhuMAb VEGF administered by a 90-minute intravenous infusion at doses from 0.1 to 10.0 mg/kg on days 0, 28, 35, and 42. Patients underwent pharmacokinetic sampling on day 0 and had serum samples obtained during the subsequent 28 days. Response assessment was carried out on days 49 and 72. Results.. Twenty-five patients with a median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 were accrued. There were no grade III or IV adverse events definitely related to the antibody. There were three episodes of tumor-related bleeding. Infusions of rhuMAb VEGF were well tolerated without significant toxicity. Grades I and II adverse events possibly or probably related to study drug included asthenia, headache, and nausea. Pharmacokinetics revealed a linear profile with a half-life of 21 days. There were no objective responses, though 12 patients experienced stable disease over the duration of the study Conclusion: rhuMAb VEGF was safely administered without dose-limiting toxicity at doses ranging up to 10 mg/kg. Multiple doses of rhuMAb VEGF were well tolerated, and pharmacokinetic studies indicate that doses of 0.3 mg/kg have a half-life similar to that of other humanized antibodies. Subsequent trials will explore rhuMAb VEGF alone and in combination chemotherapy. (C) 2001 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