Literature DB >> 10192340

There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors: results of a Pediatric Oncology Group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy.

L R Mandell1, R Kadota, C Freeman, E C Douglass, J Fontanesi, M E Cohen, E Kovnar, P Burger, R A Sanford, J Kepner, H Friedman, L E Kun.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In June 1992, POG began accrual to a phase III study, POG-9239, designed to compare the time to disease progression, overall survival, and toxicities observed in children with newly diagnosed brainstem tumor treated with 100 mg/m2 of infusional cisplatin and randomized to either conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients eligible for study were those between 3 and 21 years of age with previously untreated tumors arising in the pons. Histologic confirmation of diagnosis was not mandatory, provided that the clinical and MRI scan findings were typical for a diffusely infiltrating pontine lesion. Treatment consisted of a six-week course of local field radiotherapy with either once a day treatment of 180 cGy per fraction to a total dose of 5400 cGy (arm 1) or a twice a day regimen of 117 cGy per fraction to a total dose of 7020 cGy (the second of the three hyperfractionated dose escalation levels of POG-8495) (arm 2). Because of previously reported poor results with conventional radiotherapy alone, cisplatin was included as a potential radiosensitizer in an attempt to improve progression-free and ultimate survival rates. Based on results of the phase I cisplatin dose escalation trial, POG-9139, 100 mg/m2 was chosen for this trial and was delivered by continuous infusion over a 120-hour period, beginning on the first day of radiotherapy and repeated during weeks 3 and 5. One hundred thirty eligible patients were treated on protocol, 66 on arm 1 and 64 on arm 2.
RESULTS: The results we report are from time of diagnosis through October 1997. For patients treated on arm 1, the median time to disease progression (defined as time to off study) was 6 months (range 2-15 months) and the median time to death 8.5 months (range 3-24 months); survival at 1 year was 30.9% and at 2 years, 7.1%. For patients treated on arm 2, the corresponding values were 5 months (range 1-12 months) and 8 months (range 1-23 months), with 1- and 2-year survival rates at 27.0% and 6.7%, respectively. Evaluation of response by MRI at 4 or 8 wks post treatment was available in 108 patients and revealed a complete response in 1 patient of each Rx arm, a partial response (> 50% decrease in size) in 18 patients of arm 1 and 15 patients of arm 2, minimal to no response (stable) in 25 patients of arm 1 and 23 patients of arm 2, and progressive disease in 13 patients of arm 1 and 12 patients of arm 2. The pattern of failure was local in all patients. Morbidity of treatment was similar in both Rx arms, with no significant toxicity (including hearing loss) reported. Autopsy was performed in 6 patients, and confirmed the presence of extensive residual tumor in these cases.
CONCLUSION: The major conclusion from this trial is that the hyperfractionated method of Rx 2 did not improve event-free survival (p = 0.96) nor did it improve survival (p = 0.65) over that of the conventional fractionation regimen of Rx 1, and that both treatments are associated with a poor disease-free and survival outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10192340     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00501-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  73 in total

1.  Treatment of childhood diffuse brain stem tumors: comparison of results in different treatment modalities.

Authors:  Melissa M de Aquino Gorayeb; Salim Aisen; Wladimir Nadalin; Rodrigo Panico Gorayeb; Heloisa de Andrade Carvalho
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  Pediatric brain tumors: current treatment strategies and future therapeutic approaches.

Authors:  Sabine Mueller; Susan Chang
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 7.620

3.  The results of radiotherapy for brainstem tumors.

Authors:  S E Schild; S L Stafford; P D Brown; C P Wood; B W Scheithauer; P J Schomberg; W W Wong; M K Lyons; E G Shaw
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 4.  Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: time for therapeutic optimism.

Authors:  Soumen Khatua; Wafik Zaky
Journal:  CNS Oncol       Date:  2014

5.  Pediatric brainstem abscess with hemorrhage mimicking diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: a case report.

Authors:  Ju-Hwi Kim; Tae-Young Jung; Seung-Hoon Jung; Kyung-Hwa Lee; Seul-Kee Kim
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 6.  Pharmacotherapeutic management of pediatric gliomas : current and upcoming strategies.

Authors:  Trent R Hummel; Lionel M Chow; Maryam Fouladi; David Franz
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.022

7.  Motexafin-gadolinium and involved field radiation therapy for intrinsic pontine glioma of childhood: a children's oncology group phase 2 study.

Authors:  Kristin A Bradley; Tianni Zhou; Rene Y McNall-Knapp; Regina I Jakacki; Adam S Levy; Gilbert Vezina; Ian F Pollack
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 8.  Childhood brain tumors: accomplishments and ongoing challenges.

Authors:  Roger J Packer
Journal:  J Child Neurol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.987

Review 9.  Radiotherapy for pediatric central nervous system tumors: a regional cancer centre experience.

Authors:  Glenn Bauman; Barbara Fisher; Elizabeth Cairney; Adriana Ranger; A Rashid Dar; Jill Ross; Larry Stitt; David MacDonald
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.130

10.  Outcome and prognostic factors of childhood diffuse brainstem glioma.

Authors:  Semie Hong; Il Han Kim; Kyu Chang Wang
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-04-30       Impact factor: 4.679

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.