Phase II study of XXXX and continuous infusion @entity1732 followed by @entity900 and @entity1487 in recurrent @entity135 .

@entity1 @entity135 @entity137 @entity882 @entity5 @entity3003 @entity957 @entity900 @entity1732 @entity3028 @entity1487
BACKGROUND: Recurrent @entity957 of the @entity135 is poorly responsive to most chemotherapy regimens. @entity3003 and @entity1732 are effective single agents with non-overlapping @entity137 ; therefore, we sought to explore the efficacy of this regimen in a phase II study. In the second stage of the study, @entity1 who did not respond to @entity3003 and @entity1732 were given treatment with @entity900 and @entity1487 ( @entity1487 ). @entity1 AND METHODS: @entity1 with recurrent @entity957 of the @entity135 were treated with @entity3003 400 mg/m2 followed by @entity1732 15 units intravenously as a continuous infusion for 4 days. @entity1 with no @entity5 response after 3 cycles of @entity3003 and @entity1732 were crossed-over to receive @entity900 100 mg/m2 and @entity1487 1000 mg/m2/day continuous infusion for 5 days. RESULTS: Among the 20 @entity3003 - @entity1732 @entity1 evaluable for @entity137 , no cases of grade 4 @entity3028 were reported and grade 3 or 4 @entity882 developed in only three @entity1 . Three partial responses occurred among the 19 @entity1 (16%) [95% C.I. 0% to 32%] evaluable for response to @entity3003 - @entity1732 . None of the 11 @entity1 crossed-over to @entity900 and @entity1487 had a major response. CONCLUSION: The combination of @entity3003 and @entity1732 is well tolerated in @entity1 with recurrent @entity135 , but the activity does not appear to be superior to the activity of either agent alone. @entity1 who did not respond to @entity3003 and @entity1732 were also resistant to the @entity900 and @entity1487 regimen.
