| 41. |
- Bergh, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
FACT : An Open-Label Randomized Phase III Study of Fulvestrant and Anastrozole in Combination Compared With Anastrozole Alone as First-Line Therapy for Patients With Receptor-Positive Postmenopausal Breast Cancer
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - Alexandria, VA : American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 30:16, s. 1919-1925
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To compare the effect of therapy with anastrozole versus a combination of fulvestrant and anastrozole in women in first relapse of endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women, or premenopausal women receiving a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, with estrogen receptor– and/or progesterone receptor–positive disease at first relapse after primary treatment of localized disease were open-label randomly assigned to a fulvestrant loading dose (LD) regimen followed by monthly injection plus 1 mg of anastrozole daily or to 1 mg of anastrozole daily alone. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Results: In all, 514 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole (experimental arm; n = 258) or anastrozole (standard arm; n = 256). Approximately two thirds had received adjuvant antiestrogens, but only eight individuals had received an aromatase inhibitor. Median TTP was 10.8 and 10.2 months in the experimental versus standard arm, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P = .91); median overall survival was 37.8 and 38.2 months, respectively (HR = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.32; P = 1.00). Incidences of prespecified adverse events (AEs) were similar. Hot flashes were more common in the experimental arm: 63 patients (24.6%) versus 35 patients (13.8%) in the standard arm (P = .0023). Death owing to AEs was reported in 11 (4.3%) and five patients (2.0%) in the experimental versus standard arm, respectively. Conclusion: Fulvestrant (250 mg + LD regimen) in combination with anastrozole offered no clinical efficacy advantage over anastrozole monotherapy in this population of individuals with a relatively high proportion of previous adjuvant antiestrogen exposure.
|
|
| 42. |
|
|
| 43. |
- Bergh, J
(författare)
-
Quo vadis with targeted drugs in the 21st century?
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 1527-7755. ; 27:1, s. 2-5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 44. |
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
|
|
| 48. |
- Bernhard, Jürg, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone : a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 26:22, s. 3695-3701
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.
|
|
| 49. |
|
|
| 50. |
|
|
