4.7 Article

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, an effective, well-tolerated treatment for refractory aggressive fibromatosis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 45, 期 17, 页码 2930-2934

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.016

关键词

Fibromatosis; Desmoid tumour; Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; Caelyx; Chemotherapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aggressive fibromatosis (AF) or desmoid tumour is a monoclonal proliferation which is locally invasive but does not metastasize. if local treatment fails to control the disease, systemic treatment with anti-oestrogens, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or chemotherapy can be used. Recent reports indicate that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) is effective. Methods: Twelve patients with AF received PLD between February 2006 and May 2009. PLD was administered intravenously (iv) at 50 mg/m(2) over 1 h every 4 weeks. Results: The female/male ratio was 11:1 and median age at presentation was 29 years (range 3-53). Objective response (PR) was achieved in 4 (36%) of 11 patients. In one case ongoing shrinkage of the tumour was observed for over 12 months and partial remission was achieved at 14 months after the completion of treatment. Seven patients achieved stable disease. One patient is currently undergoing chemotherapy. Clinical benefit in terms of pain relief, improved mobility or cosmesis was observed in 11 patients. Nine patients (75%) had no evidence of progression at the end of this follow-up period and disease control has ranged from 7 to 39 months with a median of 14 months. The most severe toxicities observed were palmar-plantar erythema (4) and mucositis (3). In 6 cases (55%) toxicity resulted in dose reduction. Conclusion: This is the largest series of patients with AF receiving PLD reported to date. PLD as a single agent therapy has acceptable toxicity and highly promising activity in unresectable AF and may provide long-term clinical benefit in some patients. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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