4.5 Article

Phase II study of sunitinib malate in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 491-501

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-010-0402-7

关键词

Glioblastoma; KIT; Neo-angiogenesis; PDGFR; Sunitinib; VEGFR

资金

  1. Wetenschappelijk Fonds Willy Gepts of the UZ Brussel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Receptor tyrosine kinase signaling causes profound neo-angiogenesis in high-grade gliomas (HGG). The KIT, PDGFR-alpha, and VEGFR2 genes are frequently amplified and expressed in HGG and are molecular targets for therapeutic inhibition by the small-molecule kinase inhibitor sunitinib malate. Twenty-one patients with progressive HGG after prior radiotherapy and chemotherapy received a daily dose of 37.5 mg sunitinib until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-enhanced perfusion measurements were performed before and during therapy. Cerebral blood volume (CBV) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) lesion-to-normal-white matter ratios were measured to evaluate the antiangiogenic effects of sunitinib. The most frequent grade a parts per thousand yen3 adverse events were skin toxicity, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphocytopenia. None of the patients achieved an objective response, whereas a decrease in CBV and CBF within the lesion compared with the normal brain was documented in four out of 14 (29%) patients evaluable for DSC-enhanced perfusion measurements. All patients experienced progression of their disease before or after eight weeks of therapy. Median time-to-progression and overall survival were 1.6 (95%CI 0.8-2.5) and 3.8 (95% CI 2.2-5.3) months, respectively. No correlation could be established between VEGFR2, PDGFR-alpha, and KIT gene copy numbers or protein expression and the effects of sunitinib. Single-agent sunitinib at 37.5 mg/day had insufficient activity to warrant further investigation of this monotherapy regimen in recurrent HGG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据