4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Feasibility and response to induction chemotherapy intensified with high-dose methotrexate for young children with newly diagnosed high-risk disseminated medulloblastoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 24, Pages 4881-4887

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.12.126

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate the feasibility of and response rate to an intensified induction chemotherapy regimen for young children with newly diagnosed high-risk or disseminated medulloblastomas. Patients and Methods From January 1997 to March 2003, 21 patients with high-risk or disseminated medulloblastoma were enrolled. After maximal surgical resection, patients were treated with five cycles of vincristine (0.05 mg/kg/wk X three doses per cycle for three cycles), cisplatin (3.5 mg/kg per cycle), etoposide (4 mg/kg/d X 2 days per cycle), cyclophosphamide (65 mg/kg/d x 2 days per cycle) with mesna, and methotrexate (400 mg/kg per cycle) with leucovorin rescue. Following induction chemotherapy, eligible patients underwent a single myeloablative chemotherapy cycle with autologous stem-cell rescue. Results Significant toxicities of this intensified regimen, including gastrointestinal and infectious toxicities, are described. Among the 21 patients enrolled, there were 17 complete responses (81 %), two partial responses, one stable disease, and one progressive disease. The 3-year event-free survival and overall survival are 49% (95% CI, 27% to 72%) and 60% (95% CI, 36% to 84%), respectively. Conclusion This intensified induction chemotherapy regimen is feasible and tolerable. With the majority of patients with disseminated medulloblastoma having M2 or M3 disease at diagnosis, the encouraging high response rate of this intensified induction regimen suggests that such an addition of methotrexate should be explored in future studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available