Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Series TitleSeries Title
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersContent TypeItem TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectCountry Of PublicationPublisherSourceTarget AudienceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
4,991,244
result(s) for
"D"
Sort by:
Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial
by
Zhou, Jianying
,
Cheng, Ying
,
Jin, Yening
in
Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use
,
Cancer therapies
,
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - drug therapy
2013
Icotinib, an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, had shown antitumour activity and favourable toxicity in early-phase clinical trials. We aimed to investigate whether icotinib is non-inferior to gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.
In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority trial we enrolled patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 27 sites in China. Eligible patients were those aged 18–75 years who had not responded to one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using minimisation methods, to receive icotinib (125 mg, three times per day) or gefitinib (250 mg, once per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the full analysis set. We analysed EGFR status if tissue samples were available. All investigators, clinicians, and participants were masked to patient distribution. The non-inferiority margin was 1·14; non-inferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of gefitinib versus icotinib was less than this margin. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01040780, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-09000506.
400 eligible patients were enrolled between Feb 26, 2009, and Nov 13, 2009; one patient was enrolled by mistake and removed from the study, 200 were assigned to icotinib and 199 to gefitinib. 395 patients were included in the full analysis set (icotinib, n=199; gefitinib, n=196). Icotinib was non-inferior to gefitinib in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·67–1·05; median progression-free survival 4·6 months [95% CI 3·5–6·3] vs 3·4 months [2·3–3·8]; p=0·13). The most common adverse events were rash (81 [41%] of 200 patients in the icotinib group vs 98 [49%] of 199 patients in the gefitinib group) and diarrhoea (43 [22%] vs 58 [29%]). Patients given icotinib had less drug-related adverse events than did those given gefitinib (121 [61%] vs 140 [70%]; p=0·046), especially drug-related diarrhoea (37 [19%] vs 55 [28%]; p=0·033).
Icotinib could be a new treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Zhejiang Beta Pharma (China), the Chinese National Key Special Program for Innovative Drugs, the 863 Project, and Zhejiang Provincial Key Special Program.
Journal Article
The Portuguese in West Africa, 1415-1670 : a documentary history
\"The Portuguese in West Africa, 1415-1670 brings together a collection of documents - all in new English translation - that illustrate aspects of the encounters between the Portuguese and the peoples of North and West Africa in the period from 1400 to 1650. This period witnessed the diaspora of the Sephardic Jews, the emigration of Portuguese to West Africa and the islands, and the beginnings of the black diaspora associated with the slave trade. The documents show how the Portuguese tried to understand the societies with which they came into contact and to reconcile their experience with the myths and legends inherited from classical and medieval learning. They also show how Africans reacted to the coming of Europeans, adapting Christian ideas to local beliefs and making use of exotic imports and European technologies. The documents also describe the evolution of the black Portuguese communities in Guinea and the islands, as well as the slave trade and the way that it was organized, understood, and justified\"-- Provided by publisher.
Olaratumab and doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone for treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma: an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial
2016
Treatment with doxorubicin is a present standard of care for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma and median overall survival for those treated is 12–16 months, but few, if any, novel treatments or chemotherapy combinations have been able to improve these poor outcomes. Olaratumab is a human antiplatelet-derived growth factor receptor α monoclonal antibody that has antitumour activity in human sarcoma xenografts. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaratumab plus doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.
We did an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 study of doxorubicin plus olaratumab treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma at 16 clinical sites in the USA. For both the phase 1b and phase 2 parts of the study, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma not previously treated with an anthracycline, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2, and available tumour tissue to determine PDGFRα expression by immunohistochemistry. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either olaratumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously on day 1 and day 8 plus doxorubicin (75 mg/m2) or doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to eight cycles. Randomisation was dynamic and used the minimisation randomisation technique. The phase 1b primary endpoint was safety and the phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a two-sided α level of 0·2 and statistical power of 0·8. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01185964.
15 patients were enrolled and treated with olaratumab plus doxorubicin in the phase 1b study, and 133 patients were randomised (66 to olaratumab plus doxorubicin; 67 to doxorubicin alone) in the phase 2 trial, 129 (97%) of whom received at least one dose of study treatment (64 received olaratumab plus doxorubicin, 65 received doxorubicin). Median progression-free survival in phase 2 was 6·6 months (95% CI 4·1–8·3) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 4·1 months (2·8–5·4) with doxorubicin (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·67; 0·44–1·02, p=0·0615). Median overall survival was 26·5 months (20·9–31·7) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 14·7 months (9·2–17·1) with doxorubicin (stratified HR 0·46, 0·30–0·71, p=0·0003). The objective response rate was 18·2% (9·8–29·6) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 11·9% (5·3–22·2) with doxorubicin (p=0·3421). Steady state olaratumab serum concentrations were reached during cycle 3 with mean maximum and trough concentrations ranging from 419 μg/mL (geometric coefficient of variation in percentage [CV%] 26·2) to 487 μg/mL (CV% 33·0) and from 123 μg/mL (CV% 31·2) to 156 μg/mL (CV% 38·0), respectively. Adverse events that were more frequent with olaratumab plus doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone included neutropenia (37 [58%] vs 23 [35%]), mucositis (34 [53%] vs 23 [35%]), nausea (47 [73%] vs 34 [52%]), vomiting (29 [45%] vs 12 [18%]), and diarrhoea (22 [34%] vs 15 [23%]). Febrile neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was similar in both groups (olaratumab plus doxorubicin: eight [13%] of 64 patients vs doxorubicin: nine [14%] of 65 patients).
This study of olaratumab with doxorubicin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma met its predefined primary endpoint for progression-free survival and achieved a highly significant improvement of 11·8 months in median overall survival, suggesting a potential shift in the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma.
Eli Lilly and Company.
Journal Article
Galileo unbound : a path across life, the universe and everything
'Galileo Unbound' traces the journey that brought us from Galileo's law of free fall to today's geneticists measuring evolutionary drift, entangled quantum particles moving among many worlds, and our lives as trajectories traversing a health space with thousands of dimensions. Remarkably, common themes persist that predict the evolution of species as readily as the orbits of planets or the collapse of stars into black holes. This book tells the history of spaces of expanding dimension and increasing abstraction and how they continue today to give new insight into the physics of complex systems.-- Publisher's description.
Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial
2015
VEGF and VEGF receptor-2-mediated angiogenesis contribute to hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis. Ramucirumab is a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody and VEGF receptor-2 antagonist. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib.
In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (REACH), patients were enrolled from 154 centres in 27 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had hepatocellular carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease or stage B disease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had previously received sorafenib (stopped because of progression or intolerance), and had adequate haematological and biochemical parameters. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and cause of liver disease with a stratified permuted block method. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01140347.
Between Nov 4, 2010, and April 18, 2013, 565 patients were enrolled, of whom 283 were assigned to ramucirumab and 282 were assigned to placebo. Median overall survival for the ramucirumab group was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0–10·6) versus 7·6 months (6·0–9·3) for the placebo group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·72–1·05]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients in either treatment group were ascites (13 [5%] of 277 patients treated with ramucirumab vs 11 [4%] of 276 patients treated with placebo), hypertension (34 [12%] vs ten [4%]), asthenia (14 [5%] vs five [2%]), malignant neoplasm progression (18 [6%] vs 11 [4%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (15 [5%] vs 23 [8%]), thrombocytopenia (13 [5%] vs one [<1%]), hyperbilirubinaemia (three [1%] vs 13 [5%]), and increased blood bilirubin (five [2%] vs 14 [5%]). The most frequently reported (≥1%) treatment-emergent serious adverse event of any grade or grade 3 or more was malignant neoplasm progression.
Second-line treatment with ramucirumab did not significantly improve survival over placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. No new safety signals were noted in eligible patients and the safety profile is manageable.
Eli Lilly and Co.
Journal Article
Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study
by
Kirtane, Ajay J
,
Mazzaferri, Ernest
,
Henry, Timothy D
in
aspirin
,
Aspirin - therapeutic use
,
Biological and medical sciences
2013
The relation between platelet reactivity and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and other adverse events after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents has been incompletely characterised. We aimed to determine the relation between platelet reactivity during dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel and clinical outcomes after successful coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.
ADAPT-DES was a prospective, multicentre registry of patients successfully treated with one or more drug-eluting stents and given aspirin and clopidogrel at 10–15 US and European hospitals. We assessed platelet reactivity in those patients after successful percutaneous coronary intervention using VerifyNow point-of-care assays, and assigned different cutoffs to define high platelet reactivity. The primary endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis; other endpoints were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and clinically relevant bleeding. We did a propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis to determine the relation between platelet reactivity and subsequent adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00638794.
Between Jan 7, 2008, and Sept 16, 2010, 8665 patients were prospectively enrolled at 11 sites, of which 8583 were eligible. At 1-year follow-up, stent thrombosis had occurred in 70 (0·8%) patients, myocardial infarction in 269 (3·1%), clinically relevant bleeding in 531 (6·2%), and death in 161 (1·9%) patients. High platelet reactivity on clopidogrel was strongly related to stent thrombosis (adjusted HR 2·49 [95% CI 1·43–4·31], p=0·001) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 1·42 [1·09–1·86], p=0·01), was inversely related to bleeding (adjusted HR 0·73 [0·61–0·89], p=0·002), but was not related to mortality (adjusted HR 1·20 [0·85–1·70], p=0·30). High platelet reactivity on aspirin was not significantly associated with stent thrombosis (adjusted HR 1·46 [0·58–3·64], p=0·42), myocardial infarction, or death, but was inversely related to bleeding (adjusted HR 0·65 [0·43–0·99], p=0·04).
The findings from this study emphasise the counter-balancing effects of haemorrhagic and ischaemic complications after stent implantation, and suggest that safer drugs or tailored strategies for the use of more potent agents must be developed if the benefits of greater platelet inhibition in patients with cardiovascular disease are to be realised.
Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Cordis, Biosensors, The Medicines Company, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Volcano, and Accumetrics
Journal Article
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial
2020
The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.
In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331.
Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2–34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3–not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55–0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7–18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1–12·5]; 0·71 [0·60–0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis.
With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.
Journal Article