Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorŞENCAN, ORHAN
dc.contributor.authorCevik, Duygu
dc.contributor.authorCamci, Celalettin
dc.contributor.authorKilickap, Sadettin
dc.contributor.authorOzdener, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorBuyukunal, Evin
dc.contributor.authorYALÇIN, ŞUAYİB
dc.contributor.authorUslu, Ruchan
dc.contributor.authorDANE, FAYSAL
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Ugur
dc.contributor.authorZengin, Nurullah
dc.contributor.authorBuyukberber, Suleyman
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-04T10:25:37Z
dc.date.available2021-03-04T10:25:37Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationYALÇIN Ş., Uslu R., DANE F., Yilmaz U., Zengin N., Buyukunal E., Buyukberber S., Camci C., ŞENCAN O., Kilickap S., et al., "Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine as Maintenance Therapy after Initial Bevacizumab plus XELOX Treatment in Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase Ill 'Stop and Go' Study Results - A Turkish Oncology Group Trial", ONCOLOGY, cilt.85, sa.6, ss.328-335, 2013
dc.identifier.issn0030-2414
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.otherav_6d2c3f1f-144c-406e-bfcf-d8dec49401cd
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/75421
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1159/000355914
dc.description.abstractObjective: It was the aim of this study to evaluate maintenance therapy with bevacizumab + capecitabine following induction with bevacizumab + capecitabine + oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus bevacizumab + XELOX until progression as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Patients received either bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) + XELOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks) until disease progression (arm A) or the same doses of bevacizumab + XELOX for 6 cycles followed by bevacizumab + capecitabine until disease progression (arm B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Results: One hundred and twenty-three patients were randomized. Treatment compliance was similar in both groups. Median PFS was significantly longer for arm B than for arm A (11.0 vs. 8.3 months; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between the two arms for ORR (66.7 vs. 59.0%; p = 0.861) or median OS (23.8 vs. 20.2 months; p = 0.100). Tolerability was acceptable in both treatment arms; the most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (arm B vs. arm A) were fatigue (6.6 vs. 16.1%), diarrhoea (3.3 vs. 11.3%), anorexia (3.3 vs. 11.3%), and neuropathy (1.6 vs. 8.1%). Conclusions: Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab + capecitabine can be considered an appropriate option following induction bevacizunnab + XELOX in patients with mCRC instead of continuation of bevacizumab + XELOX. (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectİç Hastalıkları
dc.subjectOnkoloji
dc.subjectDahili Tıp Bilimleri
dc.subjectTıp
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (MED)
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.subjectONKOLOJİ
dc.titleBevacizumab plus Capecitabine as Maintenance Therapy after Initial Bevacizumab plus XELOX Treatment in Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase Ill 'Stop and Go' Study Results - A Turkish Oncology Group Trial
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalONCOLOGY
dc.contributor.departmentİstanbul Üniversitesi , ,
dc.identifier.volume85
dc.identifier.issue6
dc.identifier.startpage328
dc.identifier.endpage335
dc.contributor.firstauthorID207890


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster