4.4 Article

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study of Vandetanib Plus Docetaxel/Prednisolone in Patients with Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer

期刊

CANCER BIOTHERAPY AND RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 175-180

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/cbr.2008.0588

关键词

combination; docetaxel; hormone-refractory prostate cancer; prednisolone; vandetanib

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vandetanib (ZACTIMA(TM)) is a once-daily oral anticancer drug that selectively inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, and rearranged during transfection signaling. This randomized (1: 1), double-blind study evaluated vandetanib (100mg/day) or placebo in combination with docetaxel (D; 75mg/m(2) every 3 weeks) and prednisolone (P; 2 x 5 mg/day) in 86 patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The primary assessment was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (confirmed reduction of >= 50% from baseline) and a greater number of patients showed a PSA response with placebo + DP (67%) versus vandetanib + DP (40%); hazard ratio = 2.23 (one-sided 80% confidence limit = 2.90; one-sided p = 0.99). More patients experienced progression events (disease progression or death from any cause) with vandetanib + DP (65%) versus placebo + DP (60%); hazard ratio = 1.13 (one-sided 80% confidence limit = 1.44; one-sided p = 0.67). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups, although more patients experienced adverse events, leading to permanent discontinuation with vandetanib + DP (28%) versus placebo + DP (12%). However, the safety and tolerability profile for vandetanib was similar to that previously reported; adverse events that occurred more frequently in the vandetanib + DP arm were hypertension (14% vs. 2%), erythematous rash (14% vs. 2%), and exfoliative rash (12% vs. 2%). In this study of patients with mHRPC, vandetanib + DP did not demonstrate any efficacy benefit, compared with placebo + DP.

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

4.4
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