ライフサイエンスコーパス: panitumumab

1 cific treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or panitumumab).

2 cific treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or panitumumab).

3 tor receptor (EGFR) antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab.

4 fractionation RT plus the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab.

5 monoclonal antibodies, such as cetuximab or panitumumab.

6 b and fluorescein 5(6)-isothiocyanate (FITC) panitumumab.

7 decane-N,N',N'',N'''-tetraacetic acid (DOTA)-panitumumab.

8 signed to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab.

9 fractionation RT plus the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab.

10 K-Ras alterations based on the responses to panitumumab.

11 analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab.

12 clinical approval of the drugs cetuximab and panitumumab.

13 led to its targeting by using Cetuximab and Panitumumab.

14 scertained in 427 (92%) of 463 patients (208 panitumumab, 219 BSC).

15 bevacizumab and chemotherapy with or without panitumumab 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

16 rtive care in study 20020408 with or without panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg once every 2 weeks.

17 us, with a permuted block method) to receive panitumumab (6 mg/kg once every 2 weeks) or cetuximab (i

18 ours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive panitumumab (6 mg/kg; every 2 weeks with the first 6 wee

19 diotherapy plus panitumumab (three cycles of panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks administered with radi

20 in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

21 abine 1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1).

22 emoradiotherapy (three cycles of intravenous panitumumab 9.0 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus cisplatin 75 mg

23 Evaluation of the immunogenicity of panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor

24 Panitumumab, a fully human antibody against the epiderma

25 Panitumumab, a fully human antibody targeting the epider

26 We aimed to compare panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against E

27 Panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting

28 Panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting

29 Panitumumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds to t

30 on of 28 patients receiving monotherapy with panitumumab, a therapeutic anti-EGFR antibody.

31 of detecting 10 ng/ml positive control anti-panitumumab Ab.

32 arate immunoassays for the detection of anti-panitumumab Abs.

33 in expression showed the highest (64)Cu-DOTA-panitumumab accumulation, whereas SQB20 tumors with the

34 GFR expression showed the lowest (64)Cu-DOTA-panitumumab accumulation.

35 This trial evaluated panitumumab added to bevacizumab and chemotherapy (oxali

36 clonal immunoglobulin gamma2 (IgG2) antibody panitumumab against human epidermal growth factor recept

37 vival was 10.4 months (95% CI 9.4-11.6) with panitumumab and 10.0 months (9.3-11.0) with cetuximab (H

38 toxicity occurred in 62 (13%) patients given panitumumab and 48 (10%) patients given cetuximab.

39 of whom began study treatment: 499 received panitumumab and 500 received cetuximab.

40 PFS in the WT KRAS group was 12.3 weeks for panitumumab and 7.3 weeks for BSC.

41 Median OS was 34.2 and 24.3 months in the panitumumab and bevacizumab arms, respectively (HR, 0.62

42 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P = .058) in the panitumumab and bevacizumab arms, respectively.

43 The anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies panitumumab and cetuximab are effective in patients with

44 median PFS was 10.0 and 11.4 months for the panitumumab and control arms, respectively (HR, 1.27; 95

45 ival was 19.4 months and 24.5 months for the panitumumab and control arms, respectively.

46 etween therapeutic efficacy of cetuximab and panitumumab and EGFR expression level as determined by i

47 sociated with the use of the EGFR inhibitors panitumumab and erlotinib.

48 as confirmed by ex vivo immunostaining using panitumumab and fluorescein 5(6)-isothiocyanate (FITC) p

49 1 ((111)In)- and iodine 125 ((125)I)-labeled panitumumab and trastuzumab, respectively.

50 en used to radiolabel an anti-EGFR antibody, Panitumumab, and injected into mice bearing colon cancer

51 countries), including the mAbs cetuximab and panitumumab, and the small molecule TKIs gefitinib, erlo

52 Photoimmunotherapy was performed by binding panitumumab (anti-HER1)-IR700 to HER1-positive tumor cel

53 onal antibodies (mAbs) such as cetuximab and panitumumab are promising; however, most studies indicat

54 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS), PFS favored the panitumumab arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.96; P = .02

55 RAS analyses showed adverse outcomes for the panitumumab arm in both wild-type and mutant groups.

56 nce of improved efficacy was observed in the panitumumab arm of the irinotecan cohort.

57 platin patients showed worse efficacy in the panitumumab arm.

58 ractionation RT (70 Gy/35 over 6 weeks) plus panitumumab at 9 mg/kg intravenous for 3 doses (arm B).

59 ractionation RT (70 Gy/35 over 6 weeks) plus panitumumab at 9 mg/kg intravenous for 3 doses (arm B).

60 aracterize the targeting potential of (89)Zr-panitumumab at different lesion sites.

61 n is available regarding the localization of panitumumab at primary and metastatic lesions.

62 (89)Zr-panitumumab can play a vital role in patient stratificat

63 Panitumumab cannot replace cisplatin in the combined tre

64 nd G12V positively associated with OS in the panitumumab-containing arm.

65 Patients receiving panitumumab-containing therapy were randomly assigned 1:

66 gained FDA approval in oncology (cetuximab, panitumumab, erlotinib, gefitinib and lapatinib).

67 Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLF

68 ments in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy.

69 sion-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with

70 ogression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone

71 a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4.

72 Randomized Trial of EOC +/- Panitumumab for Advanced and Locally Advanced Esophagoga

73 obtained from mice coinjected with 0.1 mg of panitumumab for blocking the target.

74 s ((177)Lu-NT-AuNP) were constructed without panitumumab for comparison.

75 nstrates the potential of (86)Y-CHX-A''-DTPA-panitumumab for quantitative noninvasive PET of HER1-exp

76 ''-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-panitumumab for quantitative PET of HER1-expressing carc

77 ing the beta-particle emitter (177)Lu and to panitumumab for targeting epidermal growth factor recept

78 grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia was higher in the panitumumab group (35 [7%] vs 13 [3%]).

79 42%] of 89 patients in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group), dysphagia (20 [32%] vs 36 [40%]), an

80 herapy group and 90 in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group).

81 oup and 51% (40-62) in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group.

82 34%) of 89 patients in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group.

83 randomized controlled trials of cetuximab or panitumumab have evaluated outcomes for patients with me

84 itinib, erlotinib, cetuximab, lapatinib, and panitumumab have less systemic side-effects than traditi

85 The potential utility of (89)Zr-panitumumab in assessing HER1 status in distant metastas

86 ndicating that the low uptake of (64)Cu-DOTA-panitumumab in SQB20 tumors was not due to the loss of E

87 small-animal PET studies with (64)Cu-labeled panitumumab in xenografts derived from 3 cell lines of h

88 The Raman studies detect large panitumumab-induced differences in vitro in cells harbor

89 Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) panitumumab-IR700 was used for targeting EGFR-expressing

90 cer cell line (2LMP-Luc) in combination with panitumumab-IRDye 700DX (pan-IR700) was used to validate

91 gand model in a randomized clinical trial of panitumumab, irinotecan, and ciclosporin in colorectal c

92 otecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups.

93 Panitumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that ta

94 Panitumumab is an anti-HER1 monoclonal antibody approved

95 Our findings show that panitumumab is non-inferior to cetuximab and that these

96 ided more accurate information about (111)In-panitumumab localization in the tumor, as the tumor was

97 day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplat

98 Panitumumab monotherapy efficacy in mCRC is confined to

99 ollected in a phase III mCRC trial comparing panitumumab monotherapy to best supportive care (BSC).

100 lecting patients with mCRC as candidates for panitumumab monotherapy.

101 rmal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor panitumumab on cell lines expressing wild-type Kirsten-R

102 We tested whether the effect of panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) differed

103 ed patients who received one or more dose of panitumumab or cetuximab, analysed per allocated treatme

104 Panitumumab (P) is a fully human, immunoglobulin G2 mono

105 dies daclizumab (Dac), trastuzumab (Tra), or panitumumab (Pan).

106 a median follow-up of 46 months, the PFS of panitumumab plus accelerated-fractionation RT was not su

107 a median follow-up of 46 months, the PFS of panitumumab plus accelerated-fractionation RT was not su

108 y (three cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)) or panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy (three cycles of intr

109 oradiotherapy group vs 35 [40%] of 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group), mucosal infla

110 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group).

111 group and in 37 (43%) of 87 patients in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group.

112 emoradiotherapy group and 61% (50-71) in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group.

113 e randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6.

114 ysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovor

115 prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-typ

116 atients in the irinotecan-vs-irinotecan with panitumumab randomization, 331 had sufficient tumor tiss

117 PFS was similar and OS was improved with panitumumab relative to bevacizumab when combined with m

118 The successful development of panitumumab represents a milestone for mice engineered w

119 Panitumumab retained 105.7% (81.9-129.5) of the effect o

120 al antibody (MoAb) therapy with cetuximab or panitumumab (see Note).

121 dermal growth factor inhibitor (cetuximab or panitumumab) should not be used in mCRC.

122 grade 3-4 infusion reactions was lower with panitumumab than with cetuximab (one [<0.5%] patient vs

123 ression of either AREG or EREG would predict panitumumab therapy benefit in RAS-wt patients; and low

124 ligand expression is a predictive marker for panitumumab therapy benefit on PFS in RAS wt patients; c

125 Currently, panitumumab therapy should be limited to patients with w

126 13 mCRC tumors are unlikely to benefit from panitumumab therapy.

127 during radiotherapy) or to radiotherapy plus panitumumab (three cycles of panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3

128 The utility of PET and MRI using (89)Zr-panitumumab to assess the status of HER1 in distant meta

129 The addition of panitumumab to bevacizumab and oxaliplatin- or irinoteca

130 Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overal

131 to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine

132 Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall su

133 Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorec

134 PICCOLO trial, which tested the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan therapy in patients with KRAS

135 cinoma of the head and neck, the addition of panitumumab to standard fractionation radiotherapy and c

136 epidermal growth factor receptor antagonist panitumumab to treat advanced colorectal cancer--was dev

137 e factor for PFS or OS in patients receiving panitumumab treatment.

138 expanded subclones before the initiation of panitumumab treatment.

139 At 2 days after injection, the mean (111)In-panitumumab uptake of 29.6% injected dose (ID) per gram

140 uptake of 13.6% ID/g +/- 1.0 and the (125)I-panitumumab uptake of 7.4% ID/g +/- 1.2 (P = .0006 and P

141 /4 adverse events in the oxaliplatin cohort (panitumumab v control) included skin toxicity (36% v 1%)

142 as awaited the recent regulatory approval of panitumumab (Vectibix), a fully human antibody directed

143 bound Neu5Gc in cetuximab (Erbitux) but not panitumumab (Vectibix).

144 We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of panitumumab versus cetuximab in these patients.

145 FS was 3.2 [2.7-8.1] months (irinotecan with panitumumab) vs 4.0 [2.7-7.5] months (irinotecan); HR, 0

146 S was 8.3 [4.0-11.0] months (irinotecan with panitumumab) vs 4.4 [2.8-6.7] months (irinotecan alone);

147 mor uptake in mice coinjected with 0.1 mg of panitumumab was 9.3 +/- 1.5, 8.8 +/- 0.9, and 10.0 +/- 1

148 Panitumumab was conjugated to CHX-A''-DTPA and radiolabe

149 Panitumumab was discontinued after a planned interim ana

150 Panitumumab was dual-labeled with the fluorophore IRDye

151 ponent with the largest spectral response to panitumumab was lipid droplets, but this effect was not

152 or the primary analysis of overall survival, panitumumab was non-inferior to cetuximab (Z score -3.19

153 (86)Y-CHX-A''-DTPA-panitumumab was routinely prepared with a specific activ

154 Response rates to panitumumab were 17% and 0%, for the WT and mutant group

155 pproved monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab and panitumumab, which displaced each other and displayed no

156 are the monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab, which prevent epidermal growth factor recep

157 We aimed to compare chemoradiotherapy plus panitumumab with chemoradiotherapy alone in patients wit

158 was demonstrated by coinjection of 0.1 mg of panitumumab with the radioimmunoconjugate.

159 ober, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn.