TABLE 2.
Effectiveness of 16 patients receiving combination therapy of ATRA and apatinib.
| Pt No | Best response | Best response time (month) | 6 month response | Period of ATRA + apatinib (months) a | Time and efficacy of last evaluation (months, response) | ATRA + apatinib discontinuation reason | Follow‐up treatment | Follow‐up (month) a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | PR/56% | 2.5 | PR/53% | 17.5 | 10.0/PD |
Doctor advice c Progression of liver metastases, interventional therapy is recommended to control liver lesions |
Liver interventional surgery, the lesion was stable and follow‐up closely | 22.2 |
| 11 | PR/56% | 2.3 | PR/40% | 6.2 | 6.2/PD |
Doctor advice c The local lesion progressed. Considering the lesion was close to the skin and may rupture, antiangiogenic targeted therapy was not suitable to use, chemotherapy was recommended but the patient refused. |
None | 23.8 |
| 16 | PR/44% | 4.9 | PR/44% | 10.0 | 17.4/SD |
Self‐discontinuation Patient was unwilling to continue treatment and failed to use other treatment |
None | 17.9 |
| 15 | SD/28% | 3.5 | SD/28% | 8.0 | 16.3/PD |
ATRA intolerance Physician suggested change drugs, but patients wanted to continue with apatinib and stop ATRA |
Only low‐dose apatinib | 17.8 |
| 1 | SD/24% | 6.5 | SD/24% | Continue | 25.6/PD |
—— (The lesion progressed slowly, recommended to switch to use other targeted drugs. Patient want to continue use the drug, considering convenient and tolerable of current regimen) |
—— | 31.7 |
| 9 | SD/16% | 5.6 | SD/15% | Continue | 17.9/SD | —— | —— | 23.9 |
| 7 | SD/15% | 3.3 | SD/15% | 8.0 | 8.0/PD |
Doctor advice c Progressed in lung. Physician suggested switching to other targeted drugs, but refused by patient. |
None | 25.8 |
| 3 | SD/15% | 0.2 | SD/19% | Continue | 28.4/SD | —— | —— | 28.4 |
| 8 | SD/13% | 1.2 | SD/12% | 11.8 | 22.9/PD |
Self‐discontinuation Patient thought that the drug was ineffective, so selected surgical treatment although physician did not recommend surgery because of the multiple lesions in lung |
surgery | 24.4 |
| 13 | SD/12% | 4.2 | SD/12% | 8.3 | 15.4/PD |
Self‐discontinuation Patient refused to continue current treatment and other treatments after progression. |
None | 22.5 |
| 12 | SD/10% | 5.6 | SD/10% | 16.1 | 15.2/PD |
Doctor advice c Progression in lung, other targeted drugs were recommended. |
Other targeted drugs | 22.8 |
| 10 | SD/9% | 2.3 | SD/8% | 19.3 | 23.8/SD |
Doctor advice c Aggravation of local pain, chemotherapy was recommended. |
Chemotherapy | 23.8 |
| 6 | SD/8% | 4.1 | SD/8% | Continue | 24.4/SD | —— | —— | 26.6 |
| 5 | SD/7% | 4.1 | SD/7% | 12.2 | 12.8/PD |
Doctor advice c Rapid progression in lung, chemotherapy was recommended. |
Chemotherapy | 26.9 |
| 2 b | SD/3% | 3.3 | SD/3% | 8.6 | 20.8/PD |
Doctor advice c Progression in lung, other targeted drugs were recommended. |
Other targeted drugs | 20.9 |
| 4 | SD/−2% | 2.0 | SD/−7% | 12.7 | 12.8/PD |
Doctor advice c Rapid lung progression, chemotherapy was recommended. |
Chemotherapy | 28.4 |
Abbreviations: PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.
The cut‐off time:October 15, 2021.
The patient died for the disease progressed.
The criteria for treatment adjustment and withdraw are as following: 1. Discontinued treatment due to grade 3 apatinib‐related toxic reactions, and then resumed after recovery to grade 2 or below; 2. If grade 3 reaction occurs again, suspending the drug. After and recovering to grade 2 or below, the dose should be halved; 3. If grade 3 reaction still occurs after lowering the dosage, withdrawal should be considered; 4. The patients asked for withdraw due intolerable or unwilling to take medicine; 5. The doctor considers that it is not appropriate to continue treatment.