4.7 Article

Phase II-I-II Study of Two Different Doses and Schedules of Pralatrexate, a High-Affinity Substrate for the Reduced Folate Carrier, in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Lymphoma Reveals Marked Activity in T-Cell Malignancies

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 26, 页码 4357-4364

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.8470

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and efficacy of pralatrexate in patients with lymphoma. Patients and Methods Pralatrexate, initially given at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) on an every-other-week basis, was associated with stomatitis. A redesigned, weekly phase I/II study established an MTD of 30 mg/m(2) weekly for six weeks every 7 weeks. Patients were required to have relapsed/refractory disease, an absolute neutrophil greater than 1,000/mu L, and a platelet count greater than 50,000/mu L for the first dose of any cycle. Results The every-other-week, phase II experience was associated with an increased risk of stomatitis and hematologic toxicity. On a weekly schedule, the MTD was 30 mg/m(2) weekly for 6 weeks every 7 weeks. This schedule modification resulted in a 50% reduction in the major hematologic toxicities and abrogation of the grades 3 to 4 stomatitis. Stomatitis was associated with elevated homocysteine and methylmalonic acid, which were reduced by folate and vitamin B12 supplementation. Of 48 assessable patients, the overall response rate was 31% (26% by intention to treat), including 17% who experienced complete remission (CR). When analyzed by lineage, the overall response rates were 10% and 54% in patients with B- and T-cell lymphomas, respectively. All eight patients who experienced CR had T-cell lymphoma, and four of the six patients with a partial remission were positron emission tomography negative. The duration of responses ranged from 3 to 26 months. Conclusion Pralatrexate has significant single-agent activity in patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphoma.

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