4.7 Article

Combination therapy: intermittent sorafenib with bevacizumab yields activity and decreased toxicity

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 495-499

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605514

关键词

ovarian cancer; anti-angiogenesis; bevacizumab; sorafenib

类别

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: We previously reported preliminary results of our phase I study of continuous daily sorafenib with bevacizumab every other week for solid tumours. Toxicity was moderate, leading to additional dose levels (DL) testing intermittent sorafenib dosing. METHODS: Seventeen patients with advanced solid tumours were treated on three additional DLs testing sorafenib days 1-5 per week. Dose level 4 was sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) and bevacizumab 5 mg kg(-1). DL5 alternated between bevacizumab 10 mg kg(-1)-sorafenib 200 mg b.i.d. (A) and sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. with bevacizumab 5 mg kg(-1) (B). Outcome and toxicity data from 19 epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients from DL 1-5 were analysed. RESULTS: Fewer patients required sorafenib dose reduction with the intermittent schedule (41 vs 74% daily, P = 0.01). Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) remained the primary cause of dose reduction (n = 5). Partial responses (12%) or disease stabilisation >= 4 months (53%; median 6 (4-26)) occurred in most patients on the intermittent schedule. Partial response occurred in 47% EOC patients treated in pooled analysis of duration 4-37 months. CONCLUSION: Intermittent sorafenib dosing with bevacizumab has promising clinical activity and less sorafenib dose reduction and side effects, but does not ameliorate HFSR. We are conducting a phase II clinical trial with intermittent sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with EOC. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 495-499. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605514 www.bjcancer.com Published online 5 January 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

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