4.6 Article

Phase II trial of irinotecan and thalidomide in adults with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 216-222

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1215/15228517-2007-060

关键词

angiogenesis; combination chemotherapy; glioblastoma multiforme; progression-free survival

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA016672, CA 16672] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This phase 11 study aimed at determining the efficacy and safety of irinotecan combined with thalidomide in adults with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) not taking enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants (EIACs). Adult patients (>= 18 years) with recurrent GBM with up to three relapses following surgery and radiation therapy were eligible for this trial. The primary end point was rate of progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS-6); secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, and toxicity. Patients were treated in 6-week cycles with 125 mg/m(2) irinotecan weekly for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off treatment and 100 mg of thalidomide daily increased as tolerated to 400 mg/day. Of 32 evaluable patients, 8 (25%) were alive and progression free at 6 months. The median PFS was 13 weeks. One patient experienced a complete response, one a partial response, and 19 stable disease. Median overall survival time from entry into the study was 36 weeks, and the 1-year survival rate was 34%. Adverse events (grade 3 or 4) included diarrhea, abdominal cramps, lymphopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two of the four deaths that occurred were possibly due to treatment-related toxicity. The combination of irinotecan, a cytotoxic agent, and thalidomide, an antiangiogenic agent, shows promising activity against recurrent GBM in patients not receiving EIACs and warrants further study. The results also provide support for similar strategies using combination therapies with newer targeted antiangiogenic agents to generate effective therapies against malignant gliomas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据