4.4 Article

Serum levels of surfactant protein D predict the anti-tumor activity of gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 331-338

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-010-1325-x

关键词

Non-small cell lung cancer; Gefitinib; SP-A; SP-D

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan [19590901]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19590901] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gefitinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that has dramatic effects in selective patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A simple non-invasive method for predicting the efficacy of gefitinib is preferable in clinical settings. In this study, we evaluated prospectively whether surfactant protein-A (SP-A) and -D (SP-D) may be new conventional predictors of the efficacy of gefitinib treatment. We measured serum SP-A and SP-D levels on days 0 and 29 in 40 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with 250 mg gefitinib daily. Eligibility criteria included performance status a parts per thousand currency sign3, age a parts per thousand currency sign80 years, and stage IIIB-IV disease. In addition, EGFR mutations were analyzed in 24 patients. Multivariate analysis showed that favorable progression-free survival (PFS) after gefitinib treatment was associated with adenocarcinoma and high serum SP-D levels before treatment. EGFR mutation analysis of 24 patients showed that 16 patients had exon 19 deletion and/or exon 21 point mutations. EGFR mutations were significantly correlated with response to gefitinib and serum SP-D levels before treatment was significantly high in patients with the EGFR mutations. Serum SP-A levels were not associated with PFS. The present study showed that measurement of serum SP-D levels before treatment in patients with NSCLC may be a new surrogate marker for predicting the response to gefitinib.

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