BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to determine whether route (intraventricular vs intralumbar) of intracerebrospinal fluid (intra-CSF) drug administration influences progression-free survival in the treatment of patients with neoplastic meningitis, which occurs in 1% to 5% of patients with known cancer. Currently available treatment options result in modest responses, which is in part a reflection of obstacles to drug delivery into the leptomeningeal space. METHODS:One hundred patients with clinically and cytologically or radiographically documented neoplastic meningitis because of solid cancers receivedintra-CSF liposomal cytarabine or methotrexate as specified in a randomized phase 4 trial. The 2 treatment arms were well balanced for demographic and tumor-related characteristics of known prognostic importance, including age, performance status, tumor type, extent of systemic and other central nervous system (CNS) disease, prior CNS therapy, and concurrent systemic chemotherapy. RESULTS:One hundred patients were randomized and treated (52 withsustained-release cytarabine, and 48 with methotrexate). Progression-free survival (the primary study endpoint) was identical between the sustained-release cytarabine and methotrexate treatment arms for all 100 patients (35 vs 37.5 days, P = .79). When progression-free survival was examined as a function of route of chemotherapy administration (lumbar vs ventricular), there was no difference for patients treated with sustained-release cytarabine (29 vs 43 days, P = .35). For patients treated with methotrexate, however, there was a statistically significant difference favoring patients receiving intraventricular therapy (19 vs 43 days, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Site of intra-CSF chemotherapy drug administration is clinically relevant with short half-life drugs such as methotrexate. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to determine whether route (intraventricular vs intralumbar) of intracerebrospinal fluid (intra-CSF) drug administration influences progression-free survival in the treatment of patients with neoplastic meningitis, which occurs in 1% to 5% of patients with known cancer. Currently available treatment options result in modest responses, which is in part a reflection of obstacles to drug delivery into the leptomeningeal space. METHODS: One hundred patients with clinically and cytologically or radiographically documented neoplastic meningitis because of solid cancers received intra-CSF liposomal cytarabine or methotrexate as specified in a randomized phase 4 trial. The 2 treatment arms were well balanced for demographic and tumor-related characteristics of known prognostic importance, including age, performance status, tumor type, extent of systemic and other central nervous system (CNS) disease, prior CNS therapy, and concurrent systemic chemotherapy. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized and treated (52 with sustained-release cytarabine, and 48 with methotrexate). Progression-free survival (the primary study endpoint) was identical between the sustained-release cytarabine and methotrexate treatment arms for all 100 patients (35 vs 37.5 days, P = .79). When progression-free survival was examined as a function of route of chemotherapy administration (lumbar vs ventricular), there was no difference for patients treated with sustained-release cytarabine (29 vs 43 days, P = .35). For patients treated with methotrexate, however, there was a statistically significant difference favoring patients receiving intraventricular therapy (19 vs 43 days, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Site of intra-CSF chemotherapy drug administration is clinically relevant with short half-life drugs such as methotrexate. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Marc Chamberlain; Riccardo Soffietti; Jeffrey Raizer; Roberta Rudà; Dieta Brandsma; Willem Boogerd; Sophie Taillibert; Morris D Groves; Emilie Le Rhun; Larry Junck; Martin van den Bent; Patrick Y Wen; Kurt A Jaeckle Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Nicholas B Figura; Victoria T Rizk; Avan J Armaghani; John A Arrington; Arnold B Etame; Hyo S Han; Brian J Czerniecki; Peter A Forsyth; Kamran A Ahmed Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: E Le Rhun; S Taillibert; F Zairi; N Kotecki; P Devos; A Mailliez; V Servent; L Vanlemmens; P Vennin; T Boulanger; M C Baranzelli; C André; G Marliot; J L Cazin; F Dubois; R Assaker; J Bonneterre; M C Chamberlain Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: P Gaviani; E Corsini; A Salmaggi; E Lamperti; A Botturi; A Erbetta; I Milanesi; F Legnani; B Pollo; A Silvani Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2013-03-24 Impact factor: 3.307