AuthorsRanson, Malcolm R
AffiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom. firstname.lastname@example.org
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractZD1839 (Iressa) is an orally active, selective epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks signal transduction pathways involved in cell proliferation. Preclinical studies demonstrated that ZD1839 is a promising agent for the treatment of a wide range of tumors and has additive-to-synergistic effects when combined with radiation or chemotherapy in various cell lines and xenografts. Phase I clinical trials have reported that ZD1839 has acceptable tolerability and antitumor activity. In addition to non-small cell lung cancer, phase II/III studies are currently investigating ZD1839 as monotherapy or in combination therapy against prostate, breast, head and neck, gastric, and colorectal tumors.
CitationZD1839 (Iressa): for more than just non-small cell lung cancer. 2002, 7 Suppl 4:16-24 Oncologist
- ZD1839: targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor in cancer therapy.
- Authors: Herbst RS
- Issue date: 2002 Jun
- Gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839): a novel targeted approach for the treatment of solid tumors.
- Authors: Von Pawel J
- Issue date: 2004 May 1
- Gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors: the wave of the future in cancer therapy.
- Authors: Penne K, Bohlin C, Schneider S, Allen D
- Issue date: 2005 Nov-Dec
- Phase I studies of ZD1839 in patients with common solid tumors.
- Authors: Lorusso PM
- Issue date: 2003 Feb
- Antitumor activity of ZD6126, a novel vascular-targeting agent, is enhanced when combined with ZD1839, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and potentiates the effects of radiation in a human non-small cell lung cancer xenograft model.
- Authors: Raben D, Bianco C, Damiano V, Bianco R, Melisi D, Mignogna C, D'Armiento FP, Cionini L, Bianco AR, Tortora G, Ciardiello F, Bunn P
- Issue date: 2004 Aug
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Ovarian cancer among 8,005 women from a breast cancer family history clinic: no increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer in families testing negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2.Ingham, S; Warwick, J; Buchan, I; Sahin, S; O'Hara, Catherine; Moran, Anthony; Howell, Anthony; Evans, D; Centre for Health Informatics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. (2013-06)Mutations in BRCA1/2 genes confer ovarian, alongside breast, cancer risk. We examined the risk of developing ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2-positive families and if this risk is extended to BRCA negative families.
Equivalence of three or four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin chemotherapy and of a 3- or 5-day schedule in good-prognosis germ cell cancer: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the Medical Research Council.De Wit, Ronald; Roberts, J Trevor; Wilkinson, Peter M; De Mulder, Pieter H M; Mead, Graham M; Fosså, S D; Cook, P; De Prijck, Linda; Stenning, S; Collette, L; Rotterdam Cancer Institute and University Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. email@example.com (2001-03-15)PURPOSE: To test the equivalence of three versus four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) and of the 5-day schedule versus 3 days per cycle in good-prognosis germ cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was designed as a 2 x 2 factorial trial. The aim was to rule out a 5% decrease in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The study included the assessment of patient quality of life. A cycle of BEP consisted of etoposide 500 mg/m(2), administered at either 100 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 165 mg/m(2) days 1 through 3, cisplatin 100 mg/m(2), administered at either 20 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 50 mg/m(2) days 1 and 2. Bleomycin 30 mg was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 during cycles 1 through 3. The randomization procedure allowed some investigators to participate only in the comparison of three versus four cycles. RESULTS: From March 1995 until April 1998, 812 patients were randomly assigned to receive three or four cycles: of these, 681 were also randomly assigned to the 5-day or the 3-day schedule. Histology, marker values, and disease extent are well balanced in the treatment arms of the two comparisons. The projected 2-year PFS is 90.4% on three cycles and 89.4% on four cycles. The difference in PFS between three and four cycles is -1.0% (80% confidence limit [CL], -3.8%, +1.8%). Equivalence for three versus four cycles is claimed because both the upper and lower bounds of the 80% CL are less than 5%. In the 5- versus 3-day comparison, the projected 2-year PFS is 88.8% and 89.7%, respectively (difference, -0.9%, (80% CL, -4.1%, +2.2%). Hence, equivalence is claimed in this comparison also. Frequencies of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were essentially similar. Quality of life was maintained better in patients receiving three cycles; no differences were detected between 3 and 5 days of treatment. CONCLUSION: We conclude that three cycles of BEP, with etoposide at 500 mg/m(2), is sufficient therapy in good-prognosis germ cell cancer and that the administration of the chemotherapy in 3 days has no detrimental effect on the effectiveness of the BEP regimen.
Penetrance estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on genetic testing in a Clinical Cancer Genetics service setting: risks of breast/ovarian cancer quoted should reflect the cancer burden in the family.Evans, D Gareth R; Shenton, Andrew; Woodward, Emma; Lalloo, Fiona; Howell, Anthony; Maher, Eamonn R; Academic Unit of Medical Genetics and Regional Genetics Service, St Mary's Hospital Manchester M13 0JH, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org (2008)BACKGROUND: The identification of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at risk relatives. However, considerable controversy exists regarding the cancer risks in women who test positive for the family mutation. METHODS: We reviewed 385 unrelated families (223 with BRCA1 and 162 with BRCA2 mutations) ascertained through two regional cancer genetics services. We estimated the penetrance for both breast and ovarian cancer in female mutation carriers (904 proven mutation carriers - 1442 females in total assumed to carry the mutation) and also assessed the effect on penetrance of mutation position and birth cohort. RESULTS: Breast cancer penetrance to 70 and to 80 years was 68% (95%CI 64.7-71.3%) and 79.5% (95%CI 75.5-83.5%) respectively for BRCA1 and 75% (95%CI 71.7-78.3%) and 88% (95%CI 85.3-91.7%) for BRCA2. Ovarian cancer risk to 70 and to 80 years was 60% (95%CI 65-71%) and 65% (95%CI 75-84%) for BRCA1 and 30% (95%CI 25.5-34.5%) and 37% (95%CI 31.5-42.5%) for BRCA2. These risks were borne out by a prospective study of cancer in the families and genetic testing of unaffected relatives. We also found evidence of a strong cohort effect with women born after 1940 having a cumulative risk of 22% for breast cancer by 40 years of age compared to 8% in women born before 1930 (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: In high-risk families, selected in a genetics service setting, women who test positive for the familial BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation are likely to have cumulative breast cancer risks in keeping with the estimates obtained originally from large families. This is particularly true for women born after 1940.