We compared the efficacy results of VEGF inhibitors versus non-VE

We compared the efficacy results of VEGF inhibitors versus non-VEGF targeting agents. Materials and methods We conducted a historical cohort analysis of mCRC patients enrolled on one of 44 phase I trials at the Institute of Drug Development at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, Texas, from March 2004 to September 2012. All patients were 18 years of age or older. Patients had received approved standard

therapies, resulting in disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Phase I agents were classified based on the primary mechanism of action of each drug. mPFS and mOS were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves and groups were statistically compared with the log rank test. The magnitude Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of association between dichotomous factors and survival was estimated with the HR. Results A total of 139 patients Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical were included in the analysis with a median age of 59 years (range, 33-81 years), 67.6% were males, 91 (65.5%) were White, 44 (31.7%) were Hispanic, three (2.2%) were African American, and one (0.7%) was American Indian. Ninety-five (68.3%) had colon cancer, and 44 Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical (31.7%) had rectal cancer. K-RAS mutations were detected in 38.7%, and 94.9% patients had ECOG performance status of 0-1. Ninety-seven (73.9%)

patients had received three or more prior chemotherapy regimens, and 89.2% had prior bevacizumab treatment with 47.7% patients receiving ten or more months of bevacizumab. No patients had received prior

ziv-aflibercept or regorafenib. The 44 phase I studies included the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical following classes of drugs (alone or in combination): anti-angiogenic/VEGF inhibitor-27 (19.4%), cytotoxic agents-51 (36.7%), cell cycle inhibitors-17 (12.2%), tumor microenvironment inhibitors-10 (7.2%), apoptosis/autophagy inducing agents-11 (7.9%), Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors-7 (5%), growth factor inhibitors-6 (4.3%), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)-2 (1.4%), inhibitors of protein degradation-3 (2.2%), immunologic agents-2 (1.4%), inhibitors of protein folding-2 (1.4%), and cell proliferation inhibitor-1 (0.7%). Cytotoxic agents were further subdivided into 33 (23.7%) microtubule-stabilizing agents and 18 (12.9%) DNA-damaging agents. Reasons for patients not completing study protocol included: 112 (80.6%) disease progression, 10 (7.2%) toxicity, 13 (9.4%) self-withdrawal, and 4 (2.9%) other reasons unrelated to treatment or toxicity. The numbers of www.selleckchem.com/products/NVP-AEW541.html cycles completed on study were: 1 cycle—38 (27.3%), 2 cycles—56 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl (40.3%), 3 cycles—15 (10.8%), 4+ cycles—30 (21.6%). Patients receiving VEGF Inhibitors received, on average, 2.9 cycles, whereas those receiving non-VEGF inhibitors received an average of 2.6 cycles. The mPFS for all 139 patients with mCRC treated on phase I trials was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.8-2.8 months). Patients treated with VEGF inhibitors (n=27) compared to non-VEGF targeting agents (n=112) had a longer mPFS of 3.7 months (95% CI: 1.

Related posts:

  1. 94-97 TABLE II Linkage results (P values) for bipolar disorder a
  2. And ultrasound-guided liver biopsy showed a “Neuroendocrine Neopl
  3. Jansen et al observed a progressive decline in left renal functi
  4. 7 versus 22 1) than patients who never received low-dose corticos
  5. Even further proof for the central involvement of VEGF certainly
This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>