European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2015
A phase II trial of low-dose estradiol in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and acquired resistance to aromatase inhibition.
Клиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Zucchini G, Armstrong A C, Wardley A M, Wilson G, Misra V, Seif M, Ryder W D, Cope J, Blowers E, Howell A, Palmieri C, Howell S J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: High-dose oestrogen (HDE) is effective but toxic in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Prolonged oestrogen deprivation sensitises BC cell lines to estrogen and we hypothesised that third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) would sensitise BCs to low-dose estradiol (LDE).
METHODS: A single-arm phase II study of LDE (2 mg estradiol valerate daily) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) ABC. The primary end-point was clinical benefit (CB) rate. If LDE was ineffective, HDE was offered. If LDE was effective, retreatment with the pre-LDE AI was offered on progression.
RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited before the trial was closed early due to slow accrual; 19 were assessable for efficacy and toxicity. CB was seen in 5 in 19 patients (26%; 95% confidence interval 9.1-51.2%), all with prolonged SD (median duration 16.8 months; range 11.0-29.6). Treatment was discontinued for toxicity in 4 in 19 patients (21%) and 8 in 11 women without hysterectomy experienced vaginal bleeding (VB). After primary LDE failure, three patients received HDE and one achieved a partial response (PR). Following CB on LDE, four patients restarted pre-LDE AI and three achieved CB including one PR. Those with CB to LDE had a significantly longer duration of first-line endocrine therapy for ABC than those without (54.9 versus 16.8 months; p < 0.01) CONCLUSION: LDE is an effective endocrine option in women with evidence of prolonged sensitivity to AI therapy. LDE is reasonably well tolerated although VB is an issue. Re-challenge with the pre-LDE AI following progression confirms re-sensitisation as a true phenomenon.
METHODS: A single-arm phase II study of LDE (2 mg estradiol valerate daily) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) ABC. The primary end-point was clinical benefit (CB) rate. If LDE was ineffective, HDE was offered. If LDE was effective, retreatment with the pre-LDE AI was offered on progression.
RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited before the trial was closed early due to slow accrual; 19 were assessable for efficacy and toxicity. CB was seen in 5 in 19 patients (26%; 95% confidence interval 9.1-51.2%), all with prolonged SD (median duration 16.8 months; range 11.0-29.6). Treatment was discontinued for toxicity in 4 in 19 patients (21%) and 8 in 11 women without hysterectomy experienced vaginal bleeding (VB). After primary LDE failure, three patients received HDE and one achieved a partial response (PR). Following CB on LDE, four patients restarted pre-LDE AI and three achieved CB including one PR. Those with CB to LDE had a significantly longer duration of first-line endocrine therapy for ABC than those without (54.9 versus 16.8 months; p < 0.01) CONCLUSION: LDE is an effective endocrine option in women with evidence of prolonged sensitivity to AI therapy. LDE is reasonably well tolerated although VB is an issue. Re-challenge with the pre-LDE AI following progression confirms re-sensitisation as a true phenomenon.