Efficacy of protracted dose-dense temozolomide in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma
- 207 Downloads
The current standard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is multimodal, comprising surgical resection plus radiotherapy and concurrent temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide for 6 months. This has been shown to provide survival benefits; however, the prognosis for these patients remains poor, and most relapse. The objective of this prospective Phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of protracted, dose-dense temozolomide therapy (100 mg/m2 for 21 consecutive days of a 28-day cycle) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma or grade 3 gliomas who had previously received standard therapy. Of the 25 patients included (median age 50 years), 20 were evaluable for radiologic response. Two patients had partial responses and 10 had stable disease (60% overall clinical benefit); 8 patients (40%) progressed after the first treatment cycle. Five patients were not assessed for radiologic response due to early clinical progression but were included in the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses. The median follow-up time was 7 months (range, 1–14 months). The median PFS was 3 months (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.8–4.2) and the median OS was 7 months (95% CI 5.1–8.9). The 6-month PFS rate (primary endpoint) was 17.3% (95% CI 1.7–32.2) and the 1-year OS rate was 12% (95% CI −1–25). This regimen was well tolerated. The most frequent adverse event was lymphopenia (grade 3–4 in 20 patients); no opportunistic infections were reported. Treatment was discontinued due to toxicity in 2 patients (grade 4 hepatic toxicity and thrombocytopenia). These data suggest that protracted, dose-dense temozolomide had modest activity with manageable toxicity in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma previously treated with temozolomide.
KeywordsProtracted Temozolomide High-grade glioma Glioblastoma
Presented in part at the 45th American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, May 29–June 2, 2009, Orlando, FL. The study was supported by Merck and Co. Inc. (formerly Schering Corp). Editorial support was provided by Helen Varley, Evidence Scientific Solutions, Horsham, UK, and supported by Merck and Co. Inc. (formerly Schering Corp).
- 13.Khan RB, Raizer JJ, Malkin MG, Bazylewicz KA, Abrey LE (2002) A phase II study of extended low-dose temozolomide in recurrent malignant gliomas. Neurooncology 4(1):39–43Google Scholar
- 17.Denis L, Tolcher A, Figueroa J et al. (2000) Protracted daily administration of temozolomide is feasible: a phase I and pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:202a (abstr. no. 786)Google Scholar
- 20.Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE) (2006) http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2010
- 22.Soffietti R, Costanza A, Laguzzi E, Nobile M, Rudà R (2004) A phase II study of first-line temozolomide and second-line PCV in recurrent/progressive malignant gliomas. J Clin Oncol, 2004 ASCO annual meeting proceedings 22(14S):1574Google Scholar
- 37.Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Basso U et al (2004) Second-line chemotherapy with irinotecan plus carmustine in glioblastoma recurrent or progressive after first-line temozolomide chemotherapy: a phase II study of the Gruppo Italiano Cooperativo di Neuro-Oncologia (GICNO). J Clin Oncol 22(23):4779–4786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Reardon DA, Friedman HS (2009) Experience with irinotecan for the treatment of malignant glioma. Neurooncology 11(1):80–91Google Scholar