4.5 Article

Phase II trial of temsirolimus in patients with metastatic breast cancer

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 136, 期 2, 页码 355-363

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1910-7

关键词

Rapamycin; Temsirolimus; Breast cancer; PIK3CA; Treatment; PTEN

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [P30CA1459931 S1, P30CA91842 S2]
  2. Avon Foundation
  3. University of Chicago Breast Cancer SPORE [P50 CA125183]
  4. Wyeth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preclinical models suggested that activating mutations of the PIK3CA gene are associated with sensitivity to inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In breast cancers, PIK3CA mutations are associated with estrogen receptor (ER) positivity. We therefore performed an open-label single arm phase II study of the rapamycin analog, temsirolimus, at a dose of 25 mg weekly, in women with pretreated breast cancers that were positive for ER, PR, or HER2. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor was collected for immunohistochemical evaluation of components of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway and PIK3CA mutation analysis. Thirty-one patients were enrolled. There were no major objective responses; however, three patients had stable disease for over 24 weeks. Twenty-three tumor samples were available for mutational analysis. There were five tumors with PIK3CA mutations; no association was found between prolonged stable disease and PIK3CA mutation or any immunohistochemical marker. There was a trend toward improved progression free survival (PFS) for patients with positive nuclear staining for phospho-Akt308. One patient remains on study four and a half years after starting therapy; her tumor did not have a PIK3CA mutation. We conclude that single agent temsirolimus has minimal activity in a population of women with heavily pretreated breast cancer. We found no evidence that either absence of immunohistochemical staining for PTEN or mutations in the hotspot domains of PIK3CA in the primary tumor were associated with clinical benefit.

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