4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) open label phase II study on glufosfamide administered as a 60-minute infusion every 3 weeks in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages 1732-1734

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdg491

Keywords

chemotherapy; glioblastoma multiforme; glufosfamide; recurrent

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Glufosfamide is a new alkylating agent in which the active metabolite of isophosphoramide mustard is covalently linked to beta-D-glucose to target the glucose transporter system and increase intracellular uptake in tumor cells. We investigated this drug in a multicenter prospective phase II trial in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Patients and methods: Eligible patients had recurrent GBM following surgery, radiotherapy and no more than one prior line of chemotherapy. Patients were treated with glufosfamide 5000 mg/m(2) administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion. Treatment success was defined as patients with either an objective response according to Macdonald's criteria or 6 months progression-free survival. Toxicity was assessed with the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 2.0. Results: Thirty-one eligible patients were included. Toxicity was modest, the main clinically relevant toxicities being leukopenia (CTC grade >3 in five patients) and hepatotoxicity (in three patients). No responses were observed; one patient (3%; 95% confidence interval 0 to 17%) was free from progression at 6 months. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed a 15% decrease in area under the curve and glufosfamide clearance in patients treated with enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs, but no effect of these drugs on maximum concentration and plasma half-life. Conclusion: Glufosfamide did not show significant clinical antitumor activity in patients with recurrent GBM.

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