Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2024
Therapeutic efficacy and safety of biweekly administration of enfortumab vedotin for urothelial carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nakagawa Ryunosuke, Izumi Kouji, Toriumi Ren, Aoyama Shuhei, Kamijima Taiki, Kano Hiroshi, Makino Tomoyuki, Naito Renato, Iwamoto Hiroaki, Yaegashi Hiroshi, Kawaguchi Shohei, Shigehara Kazuyoshi, Nohara Takahiro, Mizokami Atsushi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an established pharmacotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC); however, its adverse events (AEs) cannot be overlooked. The study investigated the efficacy and safety of biweekly EV administration.
METHODS: Patients with mUC who received EV at our institution were included in the study. Eligible patients were classified into two groups as follows: those who received EV on a standard schedule (standard group) and those who received EV on a biweekly schedule (biweekly group); the treatment outcomes and AEs between the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Nine and 19 patients were in the standard group and biweekly groups, respectively. The progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall response rate were not significantly different between the two groups. AEs following EV administration, such as decreased appetite (P < .01), pruritus (P < .01), rash maculopapular (P < .01), anemia (P = .04), and liver dysfunction (P = .04), were significantly more frequent in the standard group. Grade 3 or higher AEs, such as pruritus (P = .03) and rash maculopapular (P < .01), were significantly more frequent in the standard group. Furthermore, significantly more patients in the standard group had to be given a reduced dose due to adverse events (P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Biweekly administration of EV may be safer without compromising therapeutic efficacy than the standard schedule.
METHODS: Patients with mUC who received EV at our institution were included in the study. Eligible patients were classified into two groups as follows: those who received EV on a standard schedule (standard group) and those who received EV on a biweekly schedule (biweekly group); the treatment outcomes and AEs between the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Nine and 19 patients were in the standard group and biweekly groups, respectively. The progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall response rate were not significantly different between the two groups. AEs following EV administration, such as decreased appetite (P < .01), pruritus (P < .01), rash maculopapular (P < .01), anemia (P = .04), and liver dysfunction (P = .04), were significantly more frequent in the standard group. Grade 3 or higher AEs, such as pruritus (P = .03) and rash maculopapular (P < .01), were significantly more frequent in the standard group. Furthermore, significantly more patients in the standard group had to be given a reduced dose due to adverse events (P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Biweekly administration of EV may be safer without compromising therapeutic efficacy than the standard schedule.