4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of marimastat in glioblastoma multiforme patients following surgery and irradiation

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 78, 期 3, 页码 295-302

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-005-9098-5

关键词

invasion; marimastat; matrix metalloprotease; radiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Because raised matrix metalloprotease (MMP) levels are associated with glioma invasion and angiogenesis, we tested the efficacy of marimastat (MT) an orally active drug that can reduce MMP levels, in patients with gliomas. Patients and Methods: A total of 162 patients with intracranial glioblastoma multiforme or gliosarcomas who had undergone surgery and radiotherapy participated in this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study conducted at 20 institutions. Seventy-nine patients (57 male, 22 female, median age 58 years) were randomized to receive placebo (PB), and 83 patients (51 male, 32 female, median age 57 years) were randomized to receive MT, 10 mg orally twice daily, until tumor progression. Results: This intention-to-treat efficacy analysis showed no statistically significant difference between MT and PB groups with respect to survival (P=0.38, log rank test). The median survival time from protocol initiation was 37.9 weeks for the PB group and 42.9 weeks for the MT group, with a hazard ratio of 1.16 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.60). There were no statistically significant differences in quality of life between the PB and MT groups, as assessed by the FACT-BR questionnaire. Musculoskeletal toxicities led to dose modification or withdrawal in 20% of MT-treated and 1.2% of PB-treated patients. Conclusion: MT does not improve survival in patients with glioblastoma or gliosarcoma following surgery and radiotherapy. Therefore, single-agent MT appears unwarranted; however, MT in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy may be warranted, as suggested by observations in our study and other studies.

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