4.6 Article

Is more better? The impact of extended adjuvant temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of EORTC and NRG Oncology/RTOG

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 1119-1126

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nox025

关键词

-

资金

  1. EORTC Cancer Research Fund from Belgium
  2. National Cancer Institute [U10CA180868, U10CA180822]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Radiation with concurrent and adjuvant (6 cycles) temozolomide (TMZ) is the established standard of postsurgical care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). This regimen has been adopted with variations, including extending TMZ beyond 6 cycles. The optimal duration of maintenance therapy remains controversial. Methods: We performed pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials for newly diagnosed GBM. All patients who were progression free 28 days after cycle 6 were included. The decision to continue TMZ was per local practice and standards, and at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients were grouped into those treated with 6 cycles and those who continued beyond 6 cycles. Progression-free and overall survival were compared, adjusted by age, performance status, resection extent, and MGMT methylation. Results: A total of 2214 GBM patients were included in the 4 trials. Of these, 624 qualified for analysis 291 continued maintenance TMZ until progression or up to 12 cycles, while 333 discontinued TMZ after 6 cycles. Adjusted for prognostic factors, treatment with more than 6 cycles of TMZ was associated with a somewhat improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.65-0.98], P = .03), in particular for patients with methylated MGMT (n = 342, HR 0.65 [0.50-0.85], P < .01). However, overall survival was not affected by the number of TMZ cycles (HR = 0.92 [0.71-1.19], P = .52), including the MGMT methylated subgroup (HR = 0.89 [0.63-1.26], P = .51). Conclusions: Continuing TMZ beyond 6 cycles was not shown to increase overall survival for newly diagnosed GBM.

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