4.5 Article

Phase II study of Thalidomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 31-38

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1012554328801

关键词

Thalidomide; low-dose; glioblastoma; antiangiogenesis; VEGF; neuropathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment options and prognosis remains poor for patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. These tumors are highly vascularised and over express angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor and may potentially be responsive to antiangiogenic therapies. We present the results of a phase II trial of Thalidomide, an antiangiogenic agent, in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Patients were treated with 100 mg/day of Thalidomide, increased at weekly intervals by 100 mg to a maximum tolerated dose of 500 mg/d. Forty-two patients were enrolled, with 38 patients being assessable for response and 39 for toxicity. Two patients (5%) achieved a partial response and 16 (42%) had stable disease. The median survival was 31 weeks and the 1-year survival was 35%. Patients who had a partial response or stable disease had either a stabilisation or improvement in quality of life scores or performance status. Overall Thalidomide was well tolerated with no grade 4 toxicities and no treatment related deaths. The median maximum tolerated dose was 300 mg/day. The most common toxicity was fatigue to which patients developed tachyphylaxis. There was no correlation demonstrated with plasma vascular endothelial growth factor levels and response or survival. Thalidomide is a well-tolerated drug that may have some activity in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. Optimum dosing with antiangiogenic agents is currently under investigation. Chronic low dose therapy may be required to see conventional responses or improvements in time to progression. The dose required to achieve optimal biological impact may be better defined once we have established reliable surrogate endpoints.

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