1.
Eribulin mesilate versus vinorelbine in women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A randomised clinical trial.
Yuan, P, Hu, X, Sun, T, Li, W, Zhang, Q, Cui, S, Cheng, Y, Ouyang, Q, Wang, X, Chen, Z, et al
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2019;:57-65
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eribulin monotherapy, relative to vinorelbine, in Chinese women with locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS This phase III open-label, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre clinical trial enrolled patients with locally recurrent or MBC who had had 2-5 prior chemotherapy regimens, including an anthracycline and taxane) from September 26, 2013, to May 19, 2015. Women were randomised 1:1 to receive eribulin (1.4 mg/m2, intravenously, on day 1 and day 8) or vinorelbine (25 mg/m2, intravenously, on day 1, day 8 and day 15) every 21 days. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Five hundred thirty women were randomised to receive eribulin (n = 264) or vinorelbine (n = 266). Improvement in PFS was observed with eribulin compared with vinorelbine (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.98, P = 0.036); median PFS was 2.8 months in both treatment arms. The median OS was 13.4 months with eribulin and 12.5 months with vinorelbine (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.31, P = 0.838). The ORR was 30.7% (95% CI: 25.2%-36.6%) with eribulin and 16.9% (95% CI: 12.6%-22.0%) with vinorelbine (P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were less frequent with eribulin (7.2%) than with vinorelbine (14.0%). CONCLUSIONS Eribulin achieved statistically significantly superior PFS (and response rate) compared with vinorelbine in previously treated women with locally recurrent or MBC. Eribulin appeared to be better tolerated than vinorelbine, with no new safety signals observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov registry, NCT02225470. Registered 05 August 2014- Retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02225470?term=NCT02225470&rank=1.
2.
Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
Lin, B, Yu, H, Chen, Z, Huang, Z, Zhang, W
BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2016;(1):374
Abstract
BACKGROUND A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients treated with a PEEK cage compared to those treated with an autologous cage using the lumbar spinous process and laminae (ACSP). METHODS Sixty-nine consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease were randomly assigned to either a PEEK cage (group A, n = 34) or an ACSP (group B, n = 35). Monosegmental PLIF was performed in all patients. Mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates and complication rates were recorded and compared. The patients were followed postoperatively for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS Successful radiographic fusion was documented in all patients. No flexion-extension hypermobility or pedicle screw loosening or breakage occurred during the follow-up period. No significant difference existed between the 2 groups when comparing the mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates or complication rates. Overall satisfactory results were achieved in both groups. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that the ACSP appears to be equally as safe and effective as the PEEK cage. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN25558534 . Retrospectively registered 16/02/2016.