<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Mulders, P.F.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/13810/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>A Prospective Open-Label Single-Arm Phase II Study of Chimeric Monoclonal Antibody cG250 in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21338/</link>
      <pubDate>2003-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>cG250 is an IgG1 kappa light-chain chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds to a cell surface antigen found on 95% of clear-cell renal cancer. A multicentre phase II study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeated doses of cG250. Thirty-six patients with metastatic RCC were included. All patients were nephrectomized for the primary tumour. Twenty-one patients were pretreated (e.g. with IL-2, IFN-alpha). A weekly dose of 50 mg cG250 was given by i.v. infusion for 12 weeks. Patients with SD or tumour response (PR, CR) after 12 weeks of treatment could receive additional treatment for 8 more weeks. None of the 36 enrolled patients had any cG250 grade III or IV toxicity. Only three patients had grade II toxicity possibly related to the study medication. ELISA testing gave no evidence for relevant amounts of HACA. Eleven patients presented with SD and ten were eligible for extension treatment. After the end of the study in the follow-up period, one patient demonstrated a CR in week 38 and another patient with SD showed a significant reduction of the overall tumour load in week 44. Six additional patients with progressive disease at study entry were stable for more than six months after the treatment start. The weekly schedule of i.v. cG250 in patients with metastatic RCC was safe, very well tolerated and non-immunogenic in a 12-week treatment regimen. cG250 showed anti-tumour activity.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Prediction of residual retroperitoneal mass histology after chemotherapy for metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor: multivariate analysis of individual patient data from six study groups. (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10632/</link>
      <pubDate>1995-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>PURPOSE: To develop a statistical model that predicts the histology (necrosis, mature teratoma, or cancer) after chemotherapy for metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international data set was collected comprising individual patient data from six study groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the probability of necrosis and the ratio of cancer and mature teratoma. RESULTS: Of 556 patients, 250 (45%) had necrosis at resection, 236 (42%) had mature teratoma, and 70 (13%) had cancer. Predictors of necrosis were the absence of teratoma elements in the primary tumor, prechemotherapy normal alfa-fetoprotein (AFP), normal human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, a small prechemotherapy or postchemotherapy mass, and a large shrinkage of the mass during chemotherapy. Multivariate combination of predictors yielded reliable models (goodness-of-fit tests, P &gt; .20), which discriminated necrosis well from other histologies (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, .84), but which discriminated cancer only reasonably from mature teratoma (area, .66). Internal and external validation confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: The validated models estimate with high accuracy the histology at resection, especially necrosis, based on well-known and readily available predictors. The predicted probabilities may help to choose between immediate resection of a residual mass or follow-up, taking into account the expected benefits and risks of resection, feasibility of frequent follow-up, the financial costs, and the patient's individual preferences.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>