BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines the role of temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma. Outcomes of interest include response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse effects. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1980 through to 2005 using variations on the search terms: melanoma, clinical trial, random, temozolomide, temodal, and temodar. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting proceedings were searched from 1996 to 2005. Relevant articles and abstracts were selected and reviewed by two reviewers, and the reference lists from these sources were searched for additional trials. RESULTS: Two randomized phase III trials and three randomized phase II trials were located. In addition, 21 phase I or II trials investigating single-agent temozolomide, temozolomide plus interferon-alpha, and temozolomide plus thalidomide were reviewed. A direct comparison of temozolomide and dacarbazine demonstrated equal efficacy for response rates and overall survival; however, no significant difference was reported. A second phase III study comparing single-agent temozolomide with temozolomide combined with interferon-alpha indicated a significantly higher response rate for the combination treatment arm, but no difference in overall survival was noted. Further phase III studies are required to confirm whether there is a benefit associated with the combination of temozolomide and interferon-alpha or thalidomide. CONCLUSION: Our review of the available literature suggests that temozolomide demonstrates comparable activity to the current standard treatment, dacarbazine, with the additional benefit of being a convenient oral treatment that penetrates the blood-brain barrier.
BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines the role of temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma. Outcomes of interest include response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse effects. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1980 through to 2005 using variations on the search terms: melanoma, clinical trial, random, temozolomide, temodal, and temodar. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting proceedings were searched from 1996 to 2005. Relevant articles and abstracts were selected and reviewed by two reviewers, and the reference lists from these sources were searched for additional trials. RESULTS: Two randomized phase III trials and three randomized phase II trials were located. In addition, 21 phase I or II trials investigating single-agent temozolomide, temozolomide plus interferon-alpha, and temozolomide plus thalidomide were reviewed. A direct comparison of temozolomide and dacarbazine demonstrated equal efficacy for response rates and overall survival; however, no significant difference was reported. A second phase III study comparing single-agent temozolomide with temozolomide combined with interferon-alpha indicated a significantly higher response rate for the combination treatment arm, but no difference in overall survival was noted. Further phase III studies are required to confirm whether there is a benefit associated with the combination of temozolomide and interferon-alpha or thalidomide. CONCLUSION: Our review of the available literature suggests that temozolomide demonstrates comparable activity to the current standard treatment, dacarbazine, with the additional benefit of being a convenient oral treatment that penetrates the blood-brain barrier.
Authors: Laszlo G Radvanyi; Chantale Bernatchez; Minying Zhang; Patricia S Fox; Priscilla Miller; Jessica Chacon; Richard Wu; Gregory Lizee; Sandy Mahoney; Gladys Alvarado; Michelle Glass; Valen E Johnson; John D McMannis; Elizabeth Shpall; Victor Prieto; Nicholas Papadopoulos; Kevin Kim; Jade Homsi; Agop Bedikian; Wen-Jen Hwu; Sapna Patel; Merrick I Ross; Jeffrey E Lee; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Anthony Lucci; Richard Royal; Janice N Cormier; Michael A Davies; Rahmatu Mansaray; Orenthial J Fulbright; Christopher Toth; Renjith Ramachandran; Seth Wardell; Audrey Gonzalez; Patrick Hwu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Harshita Mishra; Pawan K Mishra; Adam Ekielski; Manu Jaggi; Zeenat Iqbal; Sushama Talegaonkar Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: J Portnow; P Frankel; S Koehler; P Twardowski; S Shibata; C Martel; R Morgan; M Cristea; W Chow; D Lim; V Chung; K Reckamp; L Leong; T W Synold Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: David S Hill; Shaun Martin; Jane L Armstrong; Ross Flockhart; Joge J Tonison; Dominic G Simpson; Mark A Birch-Machin; Christopher P F Redfern; Penny E Lovat Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Steven E Schild; Deepti Behl; Svetomir N Markovic; Paul D Brown; Jonathan R Sande; Richard L Deming; Kendrith M Rowland; James D Bearden Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.339