PURPOSE: This phase III open-label study compared the efficacy and safety of enzastaurin versus lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (WHO grade 4). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 6-week cycles of enzastaurin 500 mg/d (1,125-mg loading dose, day 1) or lomustine (100 to 130 mg/m(2), day 1). Assuming a 45% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), 397 patients were required to provide 80% power to achieve statistical significance at a one-sided level of .025. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated at 266 patients (enzastaurin, n = 174; lomustine, n = 92) after a planned interim analysis for futility. Patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Median PFS (1.5 v 1.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.70), overall survival (6.6 v 7.1 months; HR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.65), and 6-month PFS rate (P = .13) did not differ significantly between enzastaurin and lomustine, respectively. Stable disease occurred in 38.5% and 35.9% of patients and objective response occurred in 2.9% and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Time to deterioration of physical and functional well-being and symptoms did not differ between arms (HR = 1.12; P = .54). Four patients discontinued enzastaurin because of drug-related serious adverse events (AEs). Eleven patients treated with enzastaurin died on study (four because of AEs; one was drug-related). All four deaths that occurred in patients receiving lomustine were disease-related. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities were significantly higher with lomustine (46 events) than with enzastaurin (one event; P < or = .001). CONCLUSION:Enzastaurin was well tolerated and had a better hematologic toxicity profile but did not have superior efficacy compared with lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This phase III open-label study compared the efficacy and safety of enzastaurin versus lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (WHO grade 4). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 6-week cycles of enzastaurin 500 mg/d (1,125-mg loading dose, day 1) or lomustine (100 to 130 mg/m(2), day 1). Assuming a 45% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), 397 patients were required to provide 80% power to achieve statistical significance at a one-sided level of .025. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated at 266 patients (enzastaurin, n = 174; lomustine, n = 92) after a planned interim analysis for futility. Patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Median PFS (1.5 v 1.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.70), overall survival (6.6 v 7.1 months; HR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.65), and 6-month PFS rate (P = .13) did not differ significantly between enzastaurin and lomustine, respectively. Stable disease occurred in 38.5% and 35.9% of patients and objective response occurred in 2.9% and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Time to deterioration of physical and functional well-being and symptoms did not differ between arms (HR = 1.12; P = .54). Four patients discontinued enzastaurin because of drug-related serious adverse events (AEs). Eleven patients treated with enzastaurin died on study (four because of AEs; one was drug-related). All four deaths that occurred in patients receiving lomustine were disease-related. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities were significantly higher with lomustine (46 events) than with enzastaurin (one event; P < or = .001). CONCLUSION:Enzastaurin was well tolerated and had a better hematologic toxicity profile but did not have superior efficacy compared with lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.
Authors: Katrin Lamszus; Ulrike Ulbricht; Jakob Matschke; Marc A Brockmann; Regina Fillbrandt; Manfred Westphal Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E T Wong; K R Hess; M J Gleason; K A Jaeckle; A P Kyritsis; M D Prados; V A Levin; W K Yung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Teri N Kreisl; Svetlana Kotliarova; John A Butman; Paul S Albert; Lyndon Kim; Luna Musib; Donald Thornton; Howard A Fine Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Kristan A Keyes; Larry Mann; Michael Sherman; Elizabeth Galbreath; Linda Schirtzinger; Darryl Ballard; Yun-Fei Chen; Philip Iversen; Beverly A Teicher Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2003-10-31 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Jeremy N Rich; David A Reardon; Terry Peery; Jeannette M Dowell; Jennifer A Quinn; Kara L Penne; Carol J Wikstrand; Lauren B Van Duyn; Janet E Dancey; Roger E McLendon; James C Kao; Timothy T Stenzel; B K Ahmed Rasheed; Sandra E Tourt-Uhlig; James E Herndon; James J Vredenburgh; John H Sampson; Allan H Friedman; Darell D Bigner; Henry S Friedman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan M Chang; Philip Theodosopoulos; Kathleen Lamborn; Mary Malec; Jane Rabbitt; Margaretta Page; Michael D Prados Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tracy T Batchelor; David A Reardon; John F de Groot; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Weller Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wolfgang Wick; Michael Weller; Markus Weiler; Tracy Batchelor; Alfred W K Yung; Michael Platten Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jiangbing Zhou; Kofi-Buaku Atsina; Benjamin T Himes; Garth W Strohbehn; W Mark Saltzman Journal: Cancer J Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Enrico Franceschi; Roger Stupp; Martin J van den Bent; Carla van Herpen; Florence Laigle Donadey; Thierry Gorlia; Monika Hegi; Benoit Lhermitte; Lewis C Strauss; Anouk Allgeier; Denis Lacombe; Alba A Brandes Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 12.300