Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer

R. T. Eagan, E. T. Creagan, J. N. Ingle, S. Frytak, J. Rubin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A phase II evaluation of MAYT was performed in patients with advanced lung cancer, the majority of whom had had prior chemotherapy and poor PS. The overall tumor regression rate was 8%. Regressions were seen in patients with ACA, LGC, and SQC, but not in patients with SMC. Of the 47 patients treated, 21 progressed after the first course of chemotherapy. Only 26 received a second course of treatment, seven a third course, and only one a fourth course. Consequently, little can be said about the chronic toxicity. The severe constipation and unrelenting peripheral neurotoxicity seen in a minority of patients was the most troubling. We were especially concerned about our inability to prevent or ameliorate toxicity despite dose reduction or drug discontinuation. This, coupled with the 45% immediate progression rate, leads us to believe that more frequent treatment would not be more beneficial. The conclusion is that MAYT is an agent with some, but very limited, activity in lung cancer. Until the pharmacokinetics of the drug are better understood, we feel that further MAYT treatment of lung cancer employing the schedule described in this study is not warranted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1577-1579
Number of pages3
JournalCancer Treatment Reports
Volume62
Issue number10
StatePublished - 1978

Fingerprint

Maytansine
Lung Neoplasms
Drug Therapy
Constipation
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Appointments and Schedules
Therapeutics
Pharmacokinetics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Eagan, R. T., Creagan, E. T., Ingle, J. N., Frytak, S., & Rubin, J. (1978). Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer. Cancer Treatment Reports, 62(10), 1577-1579.

Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer. / Eagan, R. T.; Creagan, E. T.; Ingle, J. N.; Frytak, S.; Rubin, J.

In: Cancer Treatment Reports, Vol. 62, No. 10, 1978, p. 1577-1579.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Eagan, RT, Creagan, ET, Ingle, JN, Frytak, S & Rubin, J 1978, 'Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer', Cancer Treatment Reports, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 1577-1579.
Eagan RT, Creagan ET, Ingle JN, Frytak S, Rubin J. Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer. Cancer Treatment Reports. 1978;62(10):1577-1579.
Eagan, R. T. ; Creagan, E. T. ; Ingle, J. N. ; Frytak, S. ; Rubin, J. / Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer. In: Cancer Treatment Reports. 1978 ; Vol. 62, No. 10. pp. 1577-1579.
@article{e682443defdc4fc69ded66b64916d808,
title = "Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer",
abstract = "A phase II evaluation of MAYT was performed in patients with advanced lung cancer, the majority of whom had had prior chemotherapy and poor PS. The overall tumor regression rate was 8{\%}. Regressions were seen in patients with ACA, LGC, and SQC, but not in patients with SMC. Of the 47 patients treated, 21 progressed after the first course of chemotherapy. Only 26 received a second course of treatment, seven a third course, and only one a fourth course. Consequently, little can be said about the chronic toxicity. The severe constipation and unrelenting peripheral neurotoxicity seen in a minority of patients was the most troubling. We were especially concerned about our inability to prevent or ameliorate toxicity despite dose reduction or drug discontinuation. This, coupled with the 45{\%} immediate progression rate, leads us to believe that more frequent treatment would not be more beneficial. The conclusion is that MAYT is an agent with some, but very limited, activity in lung cancer. Until the pharmacokinetics of the drug are better understood, we feel that further MAYT treatment of lung cancer employing the schedule described in this study is not warranted.",
author = "Eagan, {R. T.} and Creagan, {E. T.} and Ingle, {J. N.} and S. Frytak and J. Rubin",
year = "1978",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "1577--1579",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Phase II evaluation of maytansine in patients with metastatic lung cancer

AU - Eagan, R. T.

AU - Creagan, E. T.

AU - Ingle, J. N.

AU - Frytak, S.

AU - Rubin, J.

PY - 1978

Y1 - 1978

N2 - A phase II evaluation of MAYT was performed in patients with advanced lung cancer, the majority of whom had had prior chemotherapy and poor PS. The overall tumor regression rate was 8%. Regressions were seen in patients with ACA, LGC, and SQC, but not in patients with SMC. Of the 47 patients treated, 21 progressed after the first course of chemotherapy. Only 26 received a second course of treatment, seven a third course, and only one a fourth course. Consequently, little can be said about the chronic toxicity. The severe constipation and unrelenting peripheral neurotoxicity seen in a minority of patients was the most troubling. We were especially concerned about our inability to prevent or ameliorate toxicity despite dose reduction or drug discontinuation. This, coupled with the 45% immediate progression rate, leads us to believe that more frequent treatment would not be more beneficial. The conclusion is that MAYT is an agent with some, but very limited, activity in lung cancer. Until the pharmacokinetics of the drug are better understood, we feel that further MAYT treatment of lung cancer employing the schedule described in this study is not warranted.

AB - A phase II evaluation of MAYT was performed in patients with advanced lung cancer, the majority of whom had had prior chemotherapy and poor PS. The overall tumor regression rate was 8%. Regressions were seen in patients with ACA, LGC, and SQC, but not in patients with SMC. Of the 47 patients treated, 21 progressed after the first course of chemotherapy. Only 26 received a second course of treatment, seven a third course, and only one a fourth course. Consequently, little can be said about the chronic toxicity. The severe constipation and unrelenting peripheral neurotoxicity seen in a minority of patients was the most troubling. We were especially concerned about our inability to prevent or ameliorate toxicity despite dose reduction or drug discontinuation. This, coupled with the 45% immediate progression rate, leads us to believe that more frequent treatment would not be more beneficial. The conclusion is that MAYT is an agent with some, but very limited, activity in lung cancer. Until the pharmacokinetics of the drug are better understood, we feel that further MAYT treatment of lung cancer employing the schedule described in this study is not warranted.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0018256508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0018256508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 709559

AN - SCOPUS:0018256508

VL - 62

SP - 1577

EP - 1579

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 10

ER -