CORE
CO
nnecting
RE
positories
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Research partnership
About
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Community governance
Governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
Innovations
Our research
Labs
Bowman Birk Inhibitor Concentrate and Oral Leukoplakia: A Randomized Phase IIb Trial
Authors
William B Armstrong
Francisco Civantos
+10 more
William Jarrard Goodwin
Mai Gui
Ann R Kennedy
Alexander Ross Kerr
Anh D Le
Raymond J Melrose
Diana V Messadi
Marjorie Perloff
Thomas H Taylor
Lori J Wirth
Publication date
1 May 2013
Publisher
ScholarlyCommons
Abstract
Oral premalignancy serves as an ideal model for study of chemopreventive agents. Although 13-cis-retinoic acid showed reversal of oral premalignancy, toxicity, and reversal of clinical response after cessation of therapy obviated its widespread use. A search for nontoxic agents with cancer preventive activity led us to evaluate Bowman Birk Inhibitor (BBI) formulated as BBI Concentrate (BBIC). We previously reported encouraging results in a phase IIa trial of BBIC in patients with oral leukoplakia with measurable clinical responses and favorable biomarker changes. On the basis of these results, we undertook a randomized, placebo controlled phase IIb trial with patients receiving BBIC or placebo for 6 months, with assessment of clinical response and change in lesion area as primary end point and an intent-to-treat analysis. One hundred and thirty two subjects were randomized; and 89 subjects completed six months on study drug or placebo. Both placebo and BBIC showed a statistically significant decrease in mean lesion area of 17.1% and 20.6%, respectively, and partial or greater clinical responses of 30% and 28% respectively. No significant difference between placebo and study drug arms was observed. Histologic review, review of photographs of lesions, and comparison of serum neu protein and oral mucosal cell protease activity also did not show significant differences between study arms. Probable reasons for these negative results were considered, are discussed, and include a placebo with non-BBIC clinical activity and reduced pharmacokinetic availability of the second batch of BBIC. This experience should be a strong cautionary note to those considering Green chemoprevention. © 2013 AACR
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
ScholarlyCommons@Penn
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:repository.upenn.edu:denta...
Last time updated on 04/03/2023