4.1 Article

Temozolomide added to whole brain radiotherapy in patients with multiple brain metastases of non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentric Austrian phase II study

期刊

WIENER KLINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT
卷 125, 期 15-16, 页码 481-486

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00508-013-0402-7

关键词

Brain metastases; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Whole brain radiotherapy; Temozolomide; Trial design

资金

  1. Aesca, Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This multicentric randomized phase II study investigated the feasibility and toxicity of temozolomide (TMZ) added to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) followed by adjuvant TMZ in patients with multiple brain metastases of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with multiple brain metastases from NSCLC aged a parts per thousand yen 18 years, classified according to recursive partitioning analysis class I or II and with adequate organ functions were eligible. Treatment consisted of WBRT + TMZ 75 mg/m(2) for 2 weeks followed at day 28 by TMZ 100 mg/m(2)/day 2 weeks on/2 weeks off for up to 6 months (radiochemotherapy, RCT) or WBRT alone (radiotherapy, RT). The study enrolled only 35 patients (22 patients in RCT and 13 in RT) and had to be closed prematurely due to poor accrual. The toxicity was mainly due to TMZ with WHO grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 3/22 versus 0/13, leucocytopenia in 1/22 versus 0/13 and lymphocytopenia in 7/22 versus 12/13 patients in RCT and RT respectively. Thirteen patients in RCT and six in RT progressed systemically and dropped out before first restaging of the response in brain. Median time to progression (TTP) was 2.4 months (95 % CI: 2-2.6 months) and 2.0 months (95 % CI: 0.5-3.5 months), median overall survival (OAS) was 3 months (95 % CI: 1.7-3.1 months) and 6.3.months (95 % CI: 0.2-7.6 months) in RCT and RT, respectively. Like other studies before on patients with brain metastases, insufficient number of recruited patients does not allow conclusions on efficacy and toxicity as the study closed prematurely.

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

4.1
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