Suppr超能文献

一项在既往广泛治疗的转移性乳腺癌患者中比较长春氟宁与烷化剂的开放性随机 III 期临床试验。

Open-label randomised phase III trial of vinflunine versus an alkylating agent in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

机构信息

Department of Oncology, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; Department of Oncology, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain.

Baselga Institute of Oncology, Hospital Quiron, Barcelona, Spain; Medica Scientia Innovation Research (MedSIR), Barcelona, Spain.

出版信息

Ann Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;29(4):881-887. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy051.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is no standard treatment after progression on second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We compared vinflunine with physician's choice of alkylating agent (AA) for patients with heavily pretreated MBC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this open-label phase III trial, patients with MBC were included if they had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC and had received anthracycline, taxane, antimetabolite and vinca alkaloid therapy. Patients were no longer candidates for these chemotherapies because of resistance and/or intolerance. Patients were randomised to either vinflunine 280 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks (q3w) or AA monotherapy q3w. Stratification factors were performance status, number of prior chemotherapy lines for MBC, disease measurability and study site. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 594 patients were randomised (298 to vinflunine, 296 to AA). There was no difference between treatment arms in OS (hazard ratio 1.04, P = 0.67; median 9.1 months for vinflunine versus 9.3 months for AA), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.94, P = 0.49; median 2.5 versus 1.9 months, respectively) or overall response rate (6% versus 4%, respectively). However, the disease control rate was significantly higher with vinflunine than AA (44% versus 35%, respectively; P = 0.04). The most common adverse events (any grade) were haematological and gastrointestinal disorders and asthenia in both arms. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (19% versus 11% with vinflunine versus AA, respectively) and asthenia (10% versus 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Vinflunine 280 mg/m2 q3w did not improve OS compared with the physician's choice of AA as third- or later-line therapy for MBC. Vinflunine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, suggesting that vinflunine 320 mg/m2 merits evaluation.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01091168.

摘要

背景

二线化疗进展后转移性乳腺癌(MBC)尚无标准治疗方法。我们比较了长春氟宁与医生选择的烷化剂(AA)用于治疗大量预处理的 MBC 患者。

患者和方法

在这项开放标签的 III 期试验中,纳入了 MBC 患者,这些患者至少接受了两种用于 MBC 的化疗方案,并且接受了蒽环类药物、紫杉烷类药物、抗代谢药物和长春花生物碱治疗。由于耐药性和/或不耐受,这些化疗药物不再适合这些患者。患者被随机分配至长春氟宁 280mg/m2 静脉滴注,每 3 周一次(q3w)或 AA 单药治疗,每 3 周一次(q3w)。分层因素为体能状态、MBC 化疗线数、疾病可测量性和研究地点。主要终点为总生存期(OS)。

结果

共随机分配了 594 例患者(长春氟宁组 298 例,AA 组 296 例)。治疗组之间的 OS 无差异(风险比 1.04,P=0.67;长春氟宁组的中位 OS 为 9.1 个月,AA 组为 9.3 个月)、无进展生存期(风险比 0.94,P=0.49;中位值分别为 2.5 个月和 1.9 个月)或总缓解率(分别为 6%和 4%)。然而,长春氟宁的疾病控制率显著高于 AA(分别为 44%和 35%;P=0.04)。在两个治疗组中,最常见的不良反应(任何级别)是血液学和胃肠道疾病以及乏力。最常见的 3/4 级不良反应是中性粒细胞减少症(长春氟宁组 19%,AA 组 11%)和乏力(10%与 4%)。

结论

与医生选择的 AA 作为 MBC 的三线或更后线治疗相比,长春氟宁 280mg/m2 q3w 并未改善 OS。长春氟宁表现出可接受的安全性特征,提示长春氟宁 320mg/m2 值得进一步评估。

临床试验.gov:NCT01091168。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验