4.7 Review

Advances in Chemotherapy of Differentiated Epithelial and Medullary Thyroid Cancers

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 94, 期 5, 页码 1493-1499

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2008-0923

关键词

-

资金

  1. Exelixis
  2. AstraZeneca
  3. Amgen, Inc.
  4. Eisai
  5. Genzyme
  6. National Cancer Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Systemic chemotherapies for advanced or metastatic thyroid carcinomas have been of only limited effectiveness. For patients with differentiated or medullary carcinomas unresponsive to conventional treatments, novel therapies are needed to improve disease outcomes. Evidence Acquisition: The PubMed and Google Scholar search engines were used to identify publications and peer-reviewed meeting presentations addressing chemotherapy and targeted therapy for differentiated or medullary carcinoma. Evidence Synthesis: Multiple novel therapies primarily targeting angiogenesis have entered clinical trials for metastatic thyroid carcinoma. Partial response rates up to 30% have been reported in single agent studies, but prolonged disease stabilization is more commonly seen. The most successful agents target the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, with potential targets including the mutant kinases associated with papillary and medullary oncogenesis. Two drugs approved for other malignancies, sorafenib and sunitinib, have had promising preliminary results reported, and are being used selectively for patients who do not qualify for clinical trials. Randomized trials for several agents are underway that may lead to eventual drug approval for thyroid cancer. Conclusion: Treatment for patients with metastatic or advanced thyroid carcinoma now emphasizes clinical trial opportunities for novel agents with considerable promise. Alternative options now exist for use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors that are well tolerated and may prove worthy of regulatory approval for this disease. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94: 1493-1499, 2009)

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