3.9 Article

Phase II study of everolimus for recurrent or progressive pediatric ependymoma

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY ADVANCES
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdad011

Keywords

clinical trials; ependymoma; everolimus; mTOR pathway

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This phase II clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of everolimus, an mTOR pathway inhibitor, for children with recurrent or progressive posterior fossa-A (PF-A) ependymomas. The study showed that everolimus did not lead to objective tumor responses in these patients. Adverse events were generally mild, with only one case of grade 3 pneumonia.
Background Preclinical studies have suggested that mTOR pathway signaling may be a potential therapeutic target for childhood ependymoma. Methods A phase II clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02155920) of single-agent everolimus was performed to test the hypothesis that mTOR pathway inhibition would result in tumor responses for children with recurrent and/or progressive ependymomas. Results Eleven subjects [sex: 4 females (36.4%); median age: 8 years (range: 2-15 years); race: 9 white; prior therapies: median 6 (range: 3-9)] were enrolled on the study. Ten primary tumors were located in the posterior fossa and one primary tumor was located in the spinal cord. Eight of 9 tumors were PF-A subtype epenydmomas. All subjects were treated with oral everolimus 4.5 mg/m(2)/day (each cycle = 28 days) that was titrated to achieve serum trough levels of 5-15 ng/ml. Overall, everolimus was well tolerated; except for a single event of grade 3 pneumonia, all adverse events were grade 1-2. No objective tumor responses were observed. Participating subjects experienced tumor progression and discontinued therapy after a median of 2 cycles of therapy (1 cycle = 2; 2 cycles = 6; 3, 4, and 8 cycles = 1 each). Conclusions Everolimus does not appear to have activity for children with recurrent or progressive PF-A ependymoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available