4.7 Article

Phase 2 study of carboplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma after progression on bevacizumab therapy

期刊

CANCER
卷 117, 期 23, 页码 5351-5358

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26188

关键词

glioblastoma; angiogenesis; bevacizumab; vascular endothelial growth factor; irinotecan; carboplatin

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [5P50-NS-20023, 5 R37 CA11898]
  2. Genentech Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of carboplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab among recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) patients after prior progression on bevacizumab therapy in a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial was evaluated. METHODS: Eligible patients received carboplatin (area under the plasma curve [AUC] 4 mg/ml-min) on day 1, whereas bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) and irinotecan (340 mg/m 2 for patients on CYP3A enzyme-inducing anti-epileptics [EIAEDs] and 125 mg/m 2 for patients not on EIAEDs) were administered on days 1 and 14 of every 28-day cycle. Patients were evaluated after each of the first 2 cycles and then after every other cycle. Treatment continued until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, noncompliance, or voluntary withdrawal. The primary end point was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS-6), and secondary end points included safety and median overall survival (OS). RESULTS: All patients had progression on at least 1 prior bevacizumab regimen and 56% enrolled after either second or third overall progression. The median OS was 5.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-7.0 months) and PFS-6 rate was 16% (95% CI, 5.0%-32.5%). The most common grade 3 or 4 events were hematologic and occurred in 29% of cycles. Nine patients (38%) required dose modification. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab was associated with modest activity and adequate safety among recurrent GBM patients who progressed on bevacizumab previously. Cancer 2011; 117: 5351-58. (C) 2011 American Cancer Society.

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