4.6 Article

Everolimus for patients with mantle cell lymphoma refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib: multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 165, 期 4, 页码 510-518

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.12780

关键词

mantle cell lymphoma; bortezomib; mammalian target of rapamycin; everolimus; relapsed/refractory disease

资金

  1. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The multicentre, open-label, two-stage, single-arm, phase 2, PILLAR (PIvotaL Lymphoma triAls of RAD001)-1 study (NCT00702052) assessed the efficacy and safety of everolimus 10mg/d in adults with confirmed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib who received >= 1 other antineoplastic agent, either separately or in combination with bortezomib. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per investigator review according to the response criteria for malignant lymphoma. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled from August 2008-January 2011. Five partial responses were observed (ORR 8 center dot 6%; 90% confidence interval [CI] 3 center dot 5-17 center dot 3%); the study did not meet the prespecified objective of >= 8 objective responses among 57 patients. Median PFS and OS were 4 center dot 4months (95% CI 3 center dot 5-6 center dot 1) and 16 center dot 9months (95% CI 14 center dot 4-29 center dot 9), respectively. Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities occurred in 70 center dot 7% of patients. Based on laboratory values, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and anaemia occurred in 13 center dot 8%, 13 center dot 8% and 8 center dot 6% of patients, respectively. Everolimus demonstrated modest activity and acceptable tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with MCL refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib. Future studies evaluating everolimus in a less refractory population or in combination with other targeted therapies in refractory MCL are warranted.

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

4.6
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