4.6 Article

A phase II study of gemcitabine in combination with tanespimycin in advanced epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 124, 期 2, 页码 210-215

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.10.002

关键词

Phase I/II trials; Tanespimycin; Gemcitabine; Ovarian cancer; Peritoneal cancer; Heat shock protein 90

资金

  1. Mayo Phase 2 [N01-CM 62205, K12 CA090628, R01 CA104378]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and biological effects of the gemcitabine/tanespimycin combination in patients with advanced ovarian and peritoneal cancer. To assess the effect of tanespimycin on tumor cells, levels of the chaperone proteins HSP90 and HSP70 were examined in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and paired tumor biopsy lysates. Methods. Two-cohort phase II clinical trial. Patients were grouped according to prior gemcitabine therapy. All participants received tanespimycin 154 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 9 of cycle 1 and days 2 and 9 of subsequent cycles. Patients also received gemcitabine 750 mg/m(2) on day 8 of the first treatment cycle and days 1 and 8 of subsequent cycles. Results. The tanespimycin/gemcitabine combination induced a partial response in 1 gemcitabine naive patient and no partial responses in gemcitabine resistant patients. Stable disease was seen in 6 patients (2 gemcitabine naive and 4 gemcitabine resistant). The most common toxicities were hematologic (anemia and neutropenia) as well as nausea and vomiting. Immunoblotting demonstrated limited upregulation of HSP70 but little or no change in levels of most client proteins in PBMC and paired tumor samples. Conclusions. Although well tolerated, the tanespimycin/gemcitabine combination exhibited limited anticancer activity in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma, perhaps because of failure to significantly downregulate the client proteins at clinically achievable exposures. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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