4.2 Review

Everolimus in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: efficacy, side-effects, resistance, and factors affecting its place in the treatment sequence

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 909-928

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2018.1476492

关键词

Neuroendocrine tumor (NET); everolimus; mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor; RADIANT trials

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health [DK053200-26]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Since the initial approval of everolimus in 2011, there have been a number of important changes in therapeutic/diagnostic modalities as well as classification/staging systems of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), which can significantly impact the use of everolimus in patients with advanced NETs.Areas covered: The efficacy of everolimus monotherapy and combination therapy demonstrated in clinical studies involving patients with advanced NETs are reviewed. Several factors affecting everolimus use are described including: the development and routine use of NET classification/staging systems; widespread use of molecular imaging modalities; side effects; drug resistance; and the availability of other treatment options. Furthermore, the current position of everolimus in the treatment approach is discussed, taking into account the recommendations from the recent guidelines.Expert opinion: Although everolimus demonstrated its high efficacy and tolerability in the RADIANT trials and other clinical studies, there still remain a number of controversies related to everolimus treatment in the management of NETs. The synergistic anti-growth effect of other agents in combination with everolimus or its effect on overall survival have not been established. The appropriate order of the use of everolimus in the treatment of advanced NETs still remains unclear, which needs to be defined in further studies and will be addressed in the new guidelines.

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

4.2
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