4.6 Article

Gefitinib Plus Interleukin-2 in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Previously Treated with Chemotherapy

期刊

CANCERS
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 2035-2048

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers6042035

关键词

gefitinib; interleukin-2; IL-2; lung cancer; non-small cell lung cancer; NSCLC; immunotherapy; tyrosine kinase inhibitors; TKI

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The activation of lymphocytes by gefitinib treatment has been described. In this phase II pilot trial, we explored the possible synergism between IL-2 and gefitinib for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. From September, 2003, to November, 2006, 70 consecutive patients with advanced, progressive NSCLC, previously treated with chemotherapy, received oral gefitinib 250 mg daily. The first 39 patients received gefitinib alone (G group). The other 31 also received subcutaneous IL-2 (GIL-2 group): 1 MIU/ m(2) (Million International Unit/m(2)) twice a day on Days 1 and 2, once a day on Days 3, 4, 5 every week for four consecutive weeks with a four-week rest period. Median follow-up was 25.2 months. Grade 3-4 toxicity of gefitinib was represented by skin rash (7%), asthenia/anorexia (6%) and diarrhea ( 7%); patients treated with IL-2 showed grade 2-3 fever (46%), fatigue (21%) and arthralgia (13%). In the GIL- 2 group and G-group, we respectively observed: an overall response rate of 16.1% (6.4% complete response) and 5.1% (only partial response); a disease control rate of 41.9% and 41%; a median time to progression of 3.5 (CI 95% = 3.2-3.8) and 4.1 (CI 95% = 2.6-5.7) months; a median overall survival of 20.1 (CI 95% = 5.1-35.1) and 6.9 (CI 95% = 4.9-8.9) months (p = 0.002); and an actuarial one-year survival rate of 54% and 30%. Skin toxicity (p < 0.001; HR = 0.29; CI 95% = 0.16-0.54) and use of IL-2 (p < 0.001; HR = 0.33; CI 95% = 0.18-0.60) were independently associated with improvement of survival. In this consecutive, non-randomized, series of advanced NSCLC patients, the use of IL-2 increased the efficacy of 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

4.6
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