Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. In the last decade, the addition of irinotecan and oxaliplatin to standard fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimens have set the new...
详细信息
Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. In the last decade, the addition of irinotecan and oxaliplatin to standard fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimens have set the new benchmark of survival for patients with metastatic CRC at approximately 20 too. Despite these advances in the management of CRC, there is a strong medical need for more effective and well-tolerated therapies. The dependence of tumor growth and metastasis on blood vessels makes angiogenesis a rational target for therapy. One of the major pathways involved in this process is the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors (VEGFR). In 2004, the first agent targeting angiogenesis, bevacizumab (BV), was approved as an adjunct to first-line cytotoxic treatment of metastatic CRC. The role of BV as part of adjuvant treatment and in combination with other targeted therapies is the subject of ongoing trials. However, BV is associated with an increase in the risk of arterial thromboembolic events, hypertension and gastrointestinal perforations and its use must be cautious. Novel VEGFR TK inhibitors with different ranges of nanomolar potencies, selectivities, and pharmacokinetic properties are entering phase 111 trials for the treatment of cancer. Conversely, one of these novel agents, vatalanib, has been shown not to confer survival benefit in first and second-line treatment of advanced CRC. The basis of these findings is being extensively evaluated. Ongoing and new well-designed trials will define the optimal clinical application of the actual antiangiogenic agents, and, on the other hand, intensive efforts in basic research will identify new agents with different antiangiogenic approaches for the treatment of CRC. In this review we discuss and highlight current and future approaches in angiogenic targeting for CRC.
AIM To demonstrate the non-inferiority(15% non-inferiority limit) of monotherapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate(TDF) vs the combination of lamivudine(LAM) plus adefovir dipivoxil(ADV) in the maintenance of virolog...
详细信息
AIM To demonstrate the non-inferiority(15% non-inferiority limit) of monotherapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate(TDF) vs the combination of lamivudine(LAM) plus adefovir dipivoxil(ADV) in the maintenance of virologic response in patients with chronic hepatitis B(CHB) and prior failure with *** This study was a Phase IV prospective, randomized, open, controlled study with 2 parallel groups(TDF and LAM+ADV) of adult patients with hepatitis B e antigen(HBe Ag)-negative CHB, prior failure with LAM, on treatment with LAM+ADV for at least 6 mo, without prior resistance to ADV and with an undetectable viral load at the start of the study, in 14 Spanish hospitals. The follow-up time for each patient was 48 wk after randomization, with quarterly visits in which the viral load, biochemical and serological parameters, adverse effects, adherence to treatment and consumption of hospital resources were *** Forty-six patients were evaluated [median age: 55.4 years(30.2-75.2); 84.8% male], including 22 patients with TDF and 24 with LAM+ADV. During study development, hepatitis B virus DNA(HBV-DNA) remained undetectable, all patients remained HBe Ag negative, and hepatitis B surface antigen(HBs Ag) positive. Alanine aminotransferase(ALT) values at the end of the study were similar in the 2 groups(25.1± 7.65, TDF vs 24.22 ± 8.38, LAM+ADV, P = 0.646). No significant changes were observed in creatinine or serum phosphorus values in either group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were noted in the identification of adverse effects(AEs)(53.8%, TDF vs 37.5%, LAM+ADV, P = 0.170), and none of the AEs which occurred were serious. Treatment adherence was 95.5% and 83.3% in the TDF and the LAM+ADV groups, respectively(P = 0.488). The costs associated with hospital resource consumption were significantly lower with the TDF treatment than the LAM+ADV treatment(€4943 ± 1059 vs €5811 ± 1538, respectively, P < 0.001).CONCLUSION TDF monotherapy proved to be safe
暂无评论