4.7 Article

A Multicenter, Phase II, Randomized, Noncomparative Clinical Trial of Radiation and Temozolomide with or without Vandetanib in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Patients

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 16, 页码 3610-3618

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3220

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Vandetanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of KDR (VEGFR2), EGFR, and RET, may enhance sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiation. We conducted a randomized, noncomparative, phase II study of radiation (RT) and temozolomide with or without vandetanib in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). Experimental Design: We planned to randomize a total of 114 newly diagnosed GBM patients in a ratio of 2: 1 to standard RT and temozolomide with (76 patients) or without (38 patients) vandetanib 100 mg daily. Patients with age >= 18 years, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) >= 60, and not on enzyme-inducing antiepileptics were eligible. Primary end-point was median overall survival (OS) from the date of randomization. Secondary endpoints included median progression-free survival (PFS), 12-month PFS, and safety. Correlative studies included pharmacokinetics as well as tissue and serum biomarker analysis. Results: The study was terminated early for futility based on the results of an interim analysis. We enrolled 106 patients (36 in the RT/temozolomide arm and 70 in the vandetanib/RT/temozolomide arm). Median OS was 15.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.0-22.5 months] in the RT/temozolomide arm and 16.6 months (95% CI, 14.9-20.1 months) in the vandetanib/RT/temozolomide (log-rank P = 0.75). Conclusions: The addition of vandetanib at a dose of 100 mg daily to standard chemoradiation in patients with newly diagnosed GBM or gliosarcoma was associated with potential pharmacodynamic biomarker changes and was reasonably well tolerated. However, the regimen did not significantly prolong OS compared with the parallel control arm, leading to early termination of the study. (C)2015 AACR.

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

4.7
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