4.6 Article

Temozolomide in the treatment of high-grade gliomas in children: a report from the Children's Oncology Group

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 317-323

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noq191

关键词

High-grade glioma; temozolomide; pediatric brain tumors

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS037704] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine whether temozolomide is an active agent in the treatment of children with high-grade astrocytomas and whether survival is influenced by the expression of the O6-methylguanine-methyltransferase gene (MGMT) in these patients. In the Children's Oncology Group study ACNS0126, 107 patients with a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma (AA), glioblastoma multi-forme (GBM), or gliosarcoma were enrolled. All patients underwent concomitant chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with temozolomide. The outcomes were compared with those of children treated in Children's Cancer Group (CCG) study CCG-945. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was available in 71 cases for immunohistochemical analysis of MGMT expression. Ninety patients were deemed eligible, 31 with AA, 55 with GBM, and 4 with other eligible diagnoses. The 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 11 +/- 3% and 22 +/- 5%, respectively. There was no evidence that temozolomide given during radiation therapy and as adjuvant therapy resulted in improved EFS compared with that found in CCG-945 (p = 0.98). The 3-year EFS rate for AA was 13 +/- 6% in ACNS0126 compared with 22 +/- 5.5% in CCG-945 (p = 0.95). The 3-year EFS rate for GBM was 7 +/- 4% in ACNS0126 compared with 15 +/- 5% in CCG-945 (p = 0.77). The 2-year EFS rate was 17 +/- 5% among patients without MGMT overexpression and 5 +/- 4% among those with MGMT overexpression (p = 0.045). Temozolomide failed to improve outcome in children with high-grade astrocytomas. MGMT overexpression was adversely associated with survival.

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

4.6
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