Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorYalcin, Suayib
dc.contributor.authorUslu, Ruchan
dc.contributor.authorDane, Faysal
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Ugur
dc.contributor.authorZengin, Nurullah
dc.contributor.authorBuyukunal, Evin
dc.contributor.authorBuyukberber, Suleyman
dc.contributor.authorCamci, Celalettin
dc.contributor.authorSencan, Orhan
dc.contributor.authorKilickap, Sadettin
dc.contributor.authorOzdener, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorCevik, Duygu
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-10T11:10:30Z
dc.date.available2019-12-10T11:10:30Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn0030-2414
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1159/000355914
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11655/14872
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.isoen
dc.publisherKarger
dc.relation.isversionof10.1159/000355914
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectOncology
dc.titleBevacizumab + Capecitabine As Maintenance Therapy After Initial Bevacizumab + Xelox Treatment In Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase Ill 'Stop And Go' Study Results - A Turkish Oncology Group Trial
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.relation.journalOncology
dc.contributor.departmentİç Hastalıkları
dc.identifier.volume85
dc.identifier.issue6
dc.identifier.startpage328
dc.identifier.endpage335
dc.description.indexWoS
dc.description.indexScopus


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster