4.4 Article

Phase II study of capecitabine and trastuzumab combination chemotherapy in patients with HER2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancers resistant to both anthracyclines and taxanes

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 361-369

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-008-0882-8

关键词

Phase II study; Capecitabine; Trastuzumab; Metastatic breast caner

资金

  1. Translational Research Informatics Center, Kobe, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate the activity of capecitabine and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast caner resistant to both anthracyclines and taxanes. From June 2003 and May 2006, 40 female patients with measurable or assessable metastatic breast cancer were enrolled and data from 38 patients were reviewed extramurally and analyzed. Patients were treated with weekly trastuzumab given at a dose of 2 mg/kg/day over 90 min (4 mg/kg/day on the first infusion) and capecitabine given at a dose 1,657 mg/m(2)/day during 21 days with a subsequent pause of 7 days. This cycle was repeated every 28 days. The primary endpoint was overall survival and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and response rate. A median of 4.5 cycles (range 1-9 cycles) were delivered. The median age was 53 (range 30-69 years). Median overall survival and progression-free survival was 22.3 and 4.1 months, respectively. Survival rate at 1 and 2 year was 81.6 and 47.4%, respectively. Response rate was 18.4% (95% CI, 7.7-34.3%). All evaluable patients have responded with two CR (5.3%), 5 PR (13.2%), 20 SD (52.6%), 8 PD (21.1%) and 3 NE (7.9%). Regarding the hematological toxicities, grade 1/2/3 neutropenia, grade 1/2 anemia, grade 1 thrombocytopenia and grade 1/2 liver dysfunction were also common. No treatment-related death was reported. The combination of capecitabine and trastuzumab is active and well-tolerated in patients with HER2-overexpressing breast caner resistant to both anthracyclines and taxanes.

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

4.4
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