Relationship between sorafenib's side effects and efficacy in treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2009.01.010
- VernacularTitle:索拉非尼治疗晚期肾癌的不良反应及其与疗效的关系
- Author:
Zhihong CHI
;
Xinan SHENG
;
Hongyun LIAN
;
Lu SI
;
Chuanliang CUI
;
Xiangqing YUAN
;
Jun GUO
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Carcinoma,renal cell;
Efficacy;
Side effects;
Sorafenib
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2009;30(1):28-31
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To identify the relationship between sorafenib's efficacy and its side effects in treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. Methods Fifty-one patients having measurable diseases were diagnosed with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Of whom, 26 patients were in stage T1Nx,0,1M1, 12 patients in stage T2Nx,0 M1, 8 patients in stage T3NxM1, 5 patients in stage T4NxM1. These 46 patients of T1 -T3 had their primary diseases removed, but the 5 T~ patients didn"t have their primary diseases removed. These 51 patients received oral sorafenib 400 mg Bid continual-ly and they had CT scan every two months to evaluate the progression. The dosage of sorafenib wasmodified according to efficacy and toxicity. Two patients changed the dosage to 200 mg Bid due to se-vere side effects. Sixteen patients increased the dosage to 600 mg Bid or 800 mg Bid. The response ofSorafenib and toxicities as well as their severity were recorded. The toxicity severity was graded ac-cording to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 3.0. The efficacy was deter-mined by RECIST criteria. The efficacy and progression free survival (PFS) were recorded. The sta-tistics analysis was conducted between sorafenib's side effects and efficacy as well as their severity by multi-faetor Logistic regression. Results The rates of adverse events in the patients receiving oral sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaetion 68. 6% (35/51), diarrhea 39. 2% (20/51), rash 25. 5% (13/ 51), mucositis 23.5% (12/51), hypertension 17.6% (9/51), and myelosuppression 13. 7%(7/51). The response rate in the patients who had toxicity of grade 3-4 was 33.3%(12/36), and that in the patients who had slight toxicity was 12.0%(3/25). The rate of hand-foot skin reaction was higher than that of diarrhea, rash, mucositis, hypertension and bone marrow suppression (P<0.01). Sor-afenib's efficacy was eorrelated to rash and mueositis (P=0.048, 0.045 respectively). More grade 3 4 side effects occurred in the patients who would have better response to sorafenib (P=0.008). The median PFS was 15.0 months and PFS was not related to the toxicity and its severity. Conclusions It may help to predict the response for sorafenib's side effects and efficacy in the treatment of the patients with advaneed renal cell earcinoma.
