Table 2 Summary of the antitumor effects
Study | N | ORR | DCR | CR | PR | SD | PD | PFS (mon) Median (95% CI) | TTP (mon) (95%CI) | PFS-16w | OS (mon) Median (95% CI) | OS-12 m | OS-6 m | Grade3–4 AEs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Melanie 2018 [28] | 90 | 15% | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 4.37 (2.99–7.36) | NA | NA | 8.6 (7.0–13.9) | 37% | 71.3% | 19% |
Kaseb 2016 [24] | 44 | 9% | 50% | 0 | 9% | 41% | 9% | 3.9 (2.0–8.3) | 3.9 (2.0–8.3) | 43% | 9.9 (8.3–15.5) | NA | NA | NA |
Govindarajan 2013 [21] | 21 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 2.57 (2.13–4.20) | 2.57 (2.13–4.2) | 28%(27w) | 8.33 (5.73–13.97) | 41.6% | 68.7% | NA |
Hsu 2013 [22] | 51 | 6% | 53% | NA | 6% | 47% | 45% | 2.9 (1.3–4.4) | 2.9 (1.3–4.4) | 35.3% | 10.7 (6.2–15.2) | 47.5% | 69.1% | 43.1% |
Philip 2012 [25] | 27 | 4% | 52% | NA | 4% | 48% | 48%; | 3.0 (1.8–7.1) | 3.0 (1.8–7.1) | NA | 9.5 (7.1–17.1) | 40.4% | 74.4% | 58% |
Yau 2012 [27] | 10 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.51 (1.08–1.74) | 1.81 (1.08–1.74) | NA | 4.37 (1.08–11.66) | 12.4% | 38.1% | 20% |
Kaseb 2012 [23] | 59 | 24% | 80% | NA | 24% | 56% | 10% | 7.2 (5.6–8.3) | NA | 64% | 13.7 (9.6–19.7) | 57.1% | 83.6% | NA |
Melanie 2009 [26] | 40 | 25% | 62.5% | NA | 25% | 37.5% | NR | 9.0 (6.0–10.4) | NA | 62.5% | 15.7 (11–18) | 63.1% | 83.0% | 22.5% |