4.7 Article

Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients intolerant to previous VEGFr-TKI therapy: a RECORD-I subgroup analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 106, 期 9, 页码 1475-1480

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.89

关键词

intolerance; kidney cancer; mTOR inhibitor; RAD001; VEGF-targeted therapy

类别

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: A relevant percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma develop intolerance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFr-TKIs) and require careful selection of subsequent treatment. This retrospective analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of everolimus in patients enrolled in the phase-III RECORD-1 trial who discontinued previous VEGFr-TKI therapy because of toxicity. METHODS: Patients with an adverse event (AE) as their primary reason for discontinuation of previous VEGFr-TKI therapy were included. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients in each arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and effect on PFS (hazard ratio (HR)) was calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: In VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients (n = 58, 14%), median PFS was 5.4 months with everolimus and 1.9 months with placebo (HR: 0.32; P = 0.004). In sunitinib-intolerant patients (n 26), median PFS was 5.1 months with everolimus and 2.8 months with placebo (HR: 0.28; P = 0.033). Grade 3/4 AEs reported with everolimus in VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients included infections (16%), fatigue (7%) and stomatitis (4%). The toxicity profile of everolimus was similar in the VEGFr-TKI-intolerant and overall study populations. CONCLUSION: Everolimus is well tolerated and efficacious with no increased toxicity in patients intolerant to VEGFr-TKI therapy. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 1475-1480. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.89 www.bjcancer.com Published online 22 March 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

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