4.5 Article

A phase II trial of oral gimatecan for recurrent glioblastoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 111, 期 3, 页码 347-353

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-012-1023-0

关键词

Gimatecan; Glioblastoma; Clinical trial; Camptothecin; Brain tumor; Glioma

资金

  1. Sigma-Tau Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gimatecan is a lipophilic oral camptothecin analogue with preclinical activity in glioma models. We conducted a multicenter phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of gimatecan in adults with recurrent glioblastoma. Eligibility criteria included a parts per thousand currency sign1 prior treatment for recurrent disease, age a parts per thousand yen18, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and normal organ function. Patients taking enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications were excluded. Gimatecan 1.22 mg/m(2) was given orally once daily for 5 consecutive days during each 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months. A Simon 2-stage optimal design was used in which 19 patients were evaluated in the 1st stage, with an additional 36 patients accrued if > 4 patients in stage 1 achieved PFS at 6 months. 29 patients were enrolled in the study, with median age of 58 years (range, 25-77 years); 58.6 % female. All patients received prior surgery, radiation therapy, and at least one chemotherapy regimen. The daily dose was reduced to 1.0 mg/m(2) after four of the first 10 patients experienced grade 4 hematologic toxicity. Treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicities included thrombocytopenia (17.2 %), leukopenia (17.2 %) and neutropenia (10.3 %). None of the 19 patients treated at 1.0 mg/m(2)/day experienced grade 4 hematologic toxicity. One patient had a partial radiographic response by modified Macdonald criteria. Only 3 patients (12 %) were progression-free at 6 months. Median time to progression was 12.0 weeks (7.0, 17.0).Treatment with gimatecan 1.0 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days, repeated every 28-days showed minimal efficacy.

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