4.5 Article

Extended-schedule dose-dense temozolomide in refractory gliomas

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 3, Pages 417-422

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-009-9980-7

Keywords

Temozolomide; Activity; Refractory; Malignant glioma

Funding

  1. Schering-Plough International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This multicenter phase II study conducted by the Spanish Neuro-Oncology Group evaluated the activity of an extended, dose-dense temozolomide regimen in patients with temozolomide-refractory malignant glioma. Adult patients (at least 18 years of age) with WHO grade III or IV glioma and a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60 or higher were treated with temozolomide (85 mg/m(2)/day) for 21 consecutive days every 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. All patients had developed progressive disease either during or less than 3 months after completing previous temozolomide treatment. Forty-seven patients were treated with a median of 2 (range, 1-13) cycles of temozolomide. Before study entry, patients had received a median of 6 cycles of temozolomide: 39 (83%) as part of initial therapy and 23 (49%) as second-line therapy. Three patients (6.4%) had a partial response with durations of 8.0, 3.5, and 3.2 months; 15 patients (31.9%) had stable disease with a median duration of 2.1 months, including 2 patients with stable disease (SD) for greater than 6 months (14 and 16 months). Median time to progression was 2 months, and median overall survival from study entry was 5.1 months. The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 16.7%. The most common hematologic toxicities were lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. Lymphopenia occurred in 83% of patients and was grade 3 in 28%, but no opportunistic infections occurred. In conclusion, this extended dose-dense schedule of temozolomide appears to have modest activity in patients refractory to previous treatment with temozolomide and is associated with manageable toxicity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available