http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Kim, Ji-Yeon,Im, Seock-Ah,Jung, Kyung Hae,Ro, Jungsil,Sohn, Joohyuk,Kim, Jee Hyun,Park, Yeon Hee,Kim, Tae-Yong,Kim, Sung-Bae,Lee, Keun Seok,Kim, Gun Min,Kim, Se Hyun,Kim, Seonwoo,Ahn, Jin Seok,Lee, Ky Elsevier 2018 European journal of cancer Vol.103 No.-
<P><B>Abstract</B></P> <P><B>Background</B></P> <P>We investigated the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant plus goserelin (F + G) versus anastrozole plus goserelin (A + G) in comparison with goserelin (G) alone in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), tamoxifen-pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC).</P> <P><B>Patients and methods</B></P> <P>In this multicentre, open-label, randomised phase II study, premenopausal women aged ≥18 years with HR+, HER2–, tamoxifen-pretreated MBC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to F + G, A + G or G alone. The primary end-point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end-points included overall survival, overall response rate, clinical benefit rate and toxicity.</P> <P><B>Results</B></P> <P>Of 138 eligible patients, 44 were randomly assigned to receive F + G, 47 to A + G and 47 to G alone. The median follow-up duration was 32.2 months (interquartile range: 23.69–40.86) and the median age was 43.0 years (range 23.0–55.0). The median TTP was 16.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5–25.1) for F + G, 14.5 months (95% CI 11.0–18.0) for A + G and 13.5 months (95% CI 10.3–16.8) for G alone. Compared with G alone, the hazard ratios were 0.608 for F + G (95% CI, 0.370–0.998; p = 0.049) and 0.982 for A + G (95% CI, 0.624–1.546; p = 0.937). In terms of visceral metastasis, a stratification factor, there were no TTP differences according to treatment arm. Grade III or IV toxicities were rarely observed. Of the common adverse events, grade I arthralgia and joint stiffness were more frequently observed in the F + G than in the A + G or G-alone groups (p < 0.05, respectively).</P> <P><B>Conclusions</B></P> <P>F + G provides a promising new option for the treatment of premenopausal women with HR+, HER2-, tamoxifen-pretreated MBC.</P> <P><B>Trial registration</B></P> <P>ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01266213 and Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) Breast cancer protocol number BR10-04.</P> <P><B>Highlights</B></P> <P> <UL> <LI> In premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer, hormone treatment similar to that used in postmenopausal women is the standard treatment option after tamoxifen treatment failure. </LI> <LI> In this study, fulvestrant plus goserelin (G) has better clinical outcome than G alone in premenopausal women, especially those younger than 40 years. </LI> <LI> Aromatase inhibitor with G is not superior to G alone in tamoxifen-pretreated premenopausal women. </LI> </UL> </P>
Kim, Hee Jeong,Lee, Moo Hyun,Lee, Jeong Eon,Park, Seho,Lee, Eun Sook,Kang, Yong Joon,Shin, Hae Na,Kim, Seung Il,Lee, Jun Ho,Im, Seock Ah,Ahn, Sei Hyun,Lee, Keun Seok,Sohn, Joohyuk,Kim, Seonok,Nam, Seo Elsevier 2018 Clinical breast cancer Vol.18 No.5
<P><B>Abstract</B></P> <P><B>Background</B></P> <P>Receipt of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist has been reported to protect against ovarian failure. We sought to determine the oncologic effect of a GnRH agonist with chemotherapy for breast cancer patients.</P> <P><B>Patients and Methods</B></P> <P>Data from 1160 patients aged 20 to 40 years with stage I to III breast cancer who received chemotherapy from 5 hospitals in Korea from 2002 to 2012 were reviewed. A GnRH agonist was provided to 406 patients for ovarian protection during chemotherapy, and 754 patients received chemotherapy without ovarian protection. An individual score-matching strategy was used to create sets matched by age, tumor stage, hormone receptor status, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, and institute.</P> <P><B>Results</B></P> <P>Survival analysis by Cox regression showed that the GnRH agonist group had better distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.89) and disease-free survival (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99) than the chemotherapy-alone group. Among patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, the benefit was significant for distant metastasis-free survival (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99) and disease-free survival (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96).</P> <P><B>Conclusion</B></P> <P>Ovarian protection using a GnRH agonist can be safely considered for premenopausal breast cancer patients for whom chemotherapy is planned.</P>
Lee, Keun-wook,Yun, Tak,Kim, Dong-wan,Im, Seock-ah,Kim, Tae-you,Yoon, Sung-soo,Heo, Dae Seog,Bang, Yung-jue,Park, Seonyang,Kim, Byoung Kook,Kim, Noe Kyeong Taylor Francis 2006 Leukemia & lymphoma Vol.47 No.7
<P>Although most patients diagnosed with extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma (NTCL) have localized disease, radiotherapy alone is unsatisfactory because of frequent systemic failure and conventional doxorubicin-based chemotherapy has low efficacy. Twenty-six patients with NTCL received ifosfamide, methotrexate, etoposide and prednisolone (IMEP) chemotherapy as first-line treatment [ifosfamide 1.5 g/m<SUP>2</SUP> (days 1 – 3), methotrexate 30 mg/m<SUP>2</SUP> (days 3 and 10), etoposide 100 mg/m<SUP>2</SUP> (days 1 – 3) and prednisolone 120 mg (days 1 – 5)]. Radiotherapy was administered only to patients with Ann Arbor stage I/II that had not achieved complete remission (CR) or to those that developed local failure after completing chemotherapy. Sixteen patients (group A) had nasal or upper aerodigestive tract localization (stage I/II) and 10 (group B) had extranasal or disseminated disease. Of the 14 evaluable patients in group A, 11 (79%) achieved CR after IMEP alone and 13 (93%) after chemotherapy ± additional radiotherapy. Although, out of the 11 patients who achieved CR with chemotherapy alone, seven developed recurrence, all recurrences were local failure and successfully treated by additional curative radiotherapy. However, patients in group B responded poorly (CR 13%). IMEP regimen was active in NTCL patients with nasal or upper aerodigestive tract localization. Considering local failure rate after IMEP alone, initial IMEP chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy may be a promising treatment strategy in this subset of NTCL.</P>
Park, Yeon Hee,Im, Seock-Ah,Kim, Sung-Bae,Sohn, Joo Hyuk,Lee, Keun Seok,Chae, Yee Soo,Lee, Ki Hyeong,Kim, Jee Hyun,Im, Young-Hyuck,Kim, Ji-Yeon,Kim, Tae-Yong,Lee, Kyung-Hun,Ahn, Jin-Hee,Kim, Gun Min,P Elsevier 2017 European journal of cancer Vol.86 No.-
<P><B>Abstract</B></P> <P><B>Background</B></P> <P>Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (PG) combination chemotherapy is a preferred chemotherapeutic regimen for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Eribulin mesylate is a halichondrin non-taxane inhibitor of microtubule dynamics. A recent pooled analysis with eribulin showed improved overall survival (OS) in various MBC patient subgroups pretreated with anthracycline and taxane. Furthermore, eribulin may have less neurotoxicity than paclitaxel.</P> <P><B>Patients and methods</B></P> <P>This study was a prospective randomised phase II, open-label, two-arm, multicentre study comparing eribulin plus gemcitabine (EG) with PG chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC. We hypothesised that EG chemotherapy would not be inferior to PG chemotherapy. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS), which was estimated to be 70% at 6 months for each arm. The secondary end-points were as follows: OS, neuropathic scale, toxicity and clinical benefit rate.</P> <P><B>Results</B></P> <P>A total of 118 patients (median age: 50, 24–66) were enrolled between March 2015 and March 2016 and were randomly assigned to PG (<I>n</I> = <I>59</I>) or EG (<I>n</I> = <I>59</I>) chemotherapy. The mean number of metastatic sites was 3 (range 1–8). The 6-month PFS rates for both arms were 72% for EG and 73% for PG (<I>P</I> = <I>0.457</I>). There was no significant difference in OS between the two groups (not reached versus 21.2 months, <I>P</I> = <I>0.2234</I>). The median number of chemotherapy cycles for both groups was 10 for EG and 8 for PG (range 2–32). Clinical benefit rates were 44% for EG and 49% for PG. Major toxicities were neutropenia and neurotoxicity. Grade II or above neurotoxicity was more common with PG than with EG (13.6% for EG versus 45.8% for PG, <I>P</I> < <I>0.0001</I>).</P> <P><B>Conclusion</B></P> <P>EG chemotherapy had similar clinical benefits to PG chemotherapy in terms of PFS but less neurotoxicity.</P> <P><B>Trial registration</B></P> <P>KCSG BR13-11; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02263495.</P> <P><B>Highlights</B></P> <P> <UL> <LI> This study was a prospective randomized phase II, multicentre study comparing EG with PG for MBC patients. </LI> <LI> The 6-month PFS rates for both arms were 72% for EG and 73% for PG (<I>P</I> = 0.457). </LI> <LI> EG chemotherapy had similar clinical benefits to PG chemotherapy in terms of progression-free survival but less neurotoxicity. </LI> </UL> </P>
Phase 2 study of 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma
( Bhum Suk Keam ),( In Sil Choi ),( Keun Wook Lee ),( Do Youn Oh ),( Se Hoon Lee ),( Jee Hyun Kim ),( Dong Wan Kim ),( Seock Ah Im ),( Tae You Kim ),( Dae Seog Heo ),( Yung Jue Bang ),( Noe Kyeong Kim 대한내과학회 2005 대한내과학회 추계학술발표논문집 Vol.2005 No.1