Child's Nervous System

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 865–869 | Cite as

Old drugs still work! Oral etoposide in a relapsed medulloblastoma

  • Marta Perez-Somarriba
  • Maitane Andión
  • Miguel A. López-Pino
  • Cinzia Lavarino
  • Luis Madero
  • Alvaro LassalettaEmail author
Case Report


Medulloblastoma is the most common malignant brain tumor in children. Approximately 30% of children with medulloblastoma will progress or relapse despite being treated. New therapies have been proposed in recent years, including high-dose chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. However, the best treatment for these patients remains unclear, and in this situation prognosis is poor. Oral etoposide has been used as a single agent or in combination for treating relapsed brain tumors since the 1990s. We report an 8-year-old patient with recurrent metastatic medulloblastoma who had an excellent response after treatment with oral etoposide, maintaining a great quality of life. As clinicians, we must always try to include our patients in clinical trials; however, when this is not possible, we should not forget that “old drugs” such as oral etoposide may work in some patients, with a good response of the tumor, and what is most important, providing the patient with a good quality of life.


Oral etoposide Relapsed medulloblastoma Chemotherapy Children 



Magnetic resonance imaging






Partial response


Complete response


Stable disease


Progressive disease


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Scheinemann K, Bouffet E (2015) Pediatric neuro-oncology. Springer. Chapter 12. Embryonal brain tumors (127–138)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwalbe EC, Lindsey JC, Nakjang S, Crosier S, Smith AJ, Hicks D, Rafiee G, Hill RM, Iliasova A, Stone T, Pizer B, Michalski A, Joshi A, Wharton SB, Jacques TS, Bailey S, Williamson D, Clifford SC (2017) Novel molecular subgroups for clinical classification and outcome prediction in childhood medulloblastoma: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol 18(7):958–971CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nygaard R, Kivivuori SM (2012) Treatment for recurrent medulloblastoma with intrathecal liposomal cytarabine and systemic metronomic combination therapy. Anti-Cancer Drugs 23(3):342–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruggiero A, Rizzo D, Attin G et al (2010) Phase I study of temozolomide combined with oral etoposide in children with recurrent or progressive medulloblastoma. Eur J Cancer 46(16):2943–2949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pizer B, Donachie P, Robinson K et al (2011) Treatment of recurrent central nervous system primitive neuroectodermal tumours in children and adolescents: results of a Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group study. Eur J Cancer 47:1389–1397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Needle MN, Molloy PT, Geyer JR, Herman-Liu A, Belasco JB, Goldwein JW, Sutton L, Phillips PC (1997) Phase II study of daily oral etoposide in children with recurrent brain tumors and other solid tumors. Med Pediatr Oncol 29(1):28–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chamberlain MC, Kormanik PA (1997) Chronic oral VP-16 for recurrent medulloblastoma. Pediatr Neurol 17(3):230–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ashley DM, Meier L, Kerby T, Zalduondo FM, Friedman HS, Gajjar A, Kun L, Duffner PK, Smith S, Longee D (1996) Response of recurrent medulloblastoma to low-dose oral etoposide. J Clin Oncol 14(6):1922–1927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peryl A, Chocholous M, Kieran M et al (2012) Antiangiogenic metronomic therapy for children with recurrent embryonal brain tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 59(3):511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robison N, Campigotto F, Chi SN et al (2014) A phase II trial of a multi-agent oral antiangiogenic (metronomic) regimen in children with recurrent or progressive cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 61(3):636–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bautista F, Fioravantti V, de Rojas T, Carceller F, Madero L, Lassaletta A, Moreno L (2017) Medulloblastoma in children and adolescents: a systematic review of contemporary phase I and II clinical trials and biology update. Cancer Med 6(11):2606–2624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dhall G, Grodman H, Sands S et al (2008) Outcome of children less than three years old at diagnosis with non-metastatic medulloblastoma treated with chemotherapy on the “Head Start I and II” protocols. Pediatr Blood Cancer 50:1169–1175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kieran MW, Turner CD, Rubin JB, Chi SN, Zimmerman MA, Chordas C, Klement G, Laforme A, Gordon A, Thomas A, Neuberg D, Browder T, Folkman J (2005) A feasibility trial of antiangiogenic (metronomic) chemotherapy in pediatric patients with recurrent or progressive cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 27(11):573–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomez S, Garrido-Garcia A, Garcia-Gerique L et al (2018) A novel method for rapid molecular subgrouping of medulloblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 24(6):1355–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davidson A, Gowing R, Lowis S, Newell D, Lewis I, Dicks-Mireaux C, Pinkerton CR (1997) Phase II study of 21 day schedule oral etoposide in children. Eur J Cancer 33(11):1816–1822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korones D, Smith A, Foreman N, Bouffet E (2006) Temozolomide and oral VP-16 for children and young adults with recurrent or treatment-induced malignant gliomas. Pediatr Blood Cancer 47(3):37–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Esbenshade AJ, Kocak M, Hershon L et al (2017) A phase II feasibility study of oral etoposide given concurrently with radiotherapy followed by dose intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for children with newly diagnosed high-risk medulloblastoma (protocol POG 9631): a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64(6):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le Deley MC, Vassal G, Tabi A, Shamsaldin A, Leblanc T, Hartmann O (2005) High cumulative rate of secondary leukemia after continuous etoposide treatment for solid tumors in children and young adults. Pediatr Blood Cancer 45:25–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ezoe S (2012) Secondary leukemia associated with the anti-cancer agent, etoposide, a topoisomerase II inhibitor. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9(7):2444–2453CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winick NJ, McKenna RW, Shuster JJ et al (1993) Secondary acute myeloid leukemia in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with etoposide. J Clin Oncol 11(2):209–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le Deley MC, Leblanc T, Shamsaldin A et al (2003) Risk of secondary leukemia after a solid tumor in childhood according to the dose of epipodophyllotoxins and anthracyclines: a case-control study by the Societé Française d’Oncologie Pédiatrique. J Clin Oncol 21(6):1074–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor MD, Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Remke M, Cho YJ, Clifford SC, Eberhart CG, Parsons DW, Rutkowski S, Gajjar A, Ellison DW, Lichter P, Gilbertson RJ, Pomeroy SL, Kool M, Pfister SM (2012) Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: the current consensus. Acta Neuropathol 123(4):465–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramaswamy V, Remke M, Eric Bouffet E et al (2013) Recurrence patterns across medulloblastoma subgroups: an integrated clinical and molecular analysis. Lancet Oncol 14(12):1200–1207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Perez-Somarriba
    • 1
  • Maitane Andión
    • 1
  • Miguel A. López-Pino
    • 2
  • Cinzia Lavarino
    • 3
  • Luis Madero
    • 1
  • Alvaro Lassaletta
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric OncologyHospital Universitario Niño JesúsMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyHospital Universitario Niño JesúsMadridSpain
  3. 3.Developmental Tumor Biology LaboratoryHospital Sant Joan de DéuBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations