Jessica M Grunda1, John Fiveash, Cheryl A Palmer, Alan Cantor, Hassan M Fathallah-Shaykh, L Burt Nabors, Martin R Johnson. 1. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Neuropathology, Department of Pathology, Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, and Division of Neuro-oncology, Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous preclinical studies suggested that concurrent capecitabine and radiation could be an effective new treatment modality for glioblastoma (GBM). In the current study, we investigate toxicity and response to this regimen and explore associations between gene expression and patient outcome. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eighteen newly diagnosed GBM patients received concurrent capecitabine at 625 mg/m2 BID (25% escalation) and irradiation (60 Gy total) for 6 weeks followed by 4 weeks of capecitabine only. Maintenance capecitabine was administered for 14 days every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Expression analysis of 94 genes involved in capecitabine metabolism and radiation response was done on tissues obtained before therapy. The relationship of gene expression with time-to-progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) was investigated using univariate Cox proportional hazards regression, semi-supervised principle component analysis, and class prediction modeling. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose of capecitabine was 625 mg/m2 BID. Median patient TTP and OS were 247 and 367 days, respectively. Cox regression identified 24 genes significantly (P<0.025) associated with patient outcome. Semi-supervised principle component analysis identified two patient populations significantly different in both TTP (P=0.005) and OS (P=0.015). Class prediction modeling determined that eight genes (RAD54B, MTOR, DCTD, APEX2, TK1, RRM2, SLC29A1, and ERCC6) could collectively classify patients into outcome subgroups with 100% accuracy and precision. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine and concurrent radiation for newly diagnosed GBM seems to be well tolerated and comparable to temozolomide and radiation. A gene expression profile predictive of patient outcome that may be useful in patient stratification for therapy was also elucidated. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR.
PURPOSE: Previous preclinical studies suggested that concurrent capecitabine and radiation could be an effective new treatment modality for glioblastoma (GBM). In the current study, we investigate toxicity and response to this regimen and explore associations between gene expression and patient outcome. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eighteen newly diagnosed GBM patients received concurrent capecitabine at 625 mg/m2 BID (25% escalation) and irradiation (60 Gy total) for 6 weeks followed by 4 weeks of capecitabine only. Maintenance capecitabine was administered for 14 days every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Expression analysis of 94 genes involved in capecitabine metabolism and radiation response was done on tissues obtained before therapy. The relationship of gene expression with time-to-progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) was investigated using univariate Cox proportional hazards regression, semi-supervised principle component analysis, and class prediction modeling. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose of capecitabine was 625 mg/m2 BID. Median patient TTP and OS were 247 and 367 days, respectively. Cox regression identified 24 genes significantly (P<0.025) associated with patient outcome. Semi-supervised principle component analysis identified two patient populations significantly different in both TTP (P=0.005) and OS (P=0.015). Class prediction modeling determined that eight genes (RAD54B, MTOR, DCTD, APEX2, TK1, RRM2, SLC29A1, and ERCC6) could collectively classify patients into outcome subgroups with 100% accuracy and precision. CONCLUSIONS:Capecitabine and concurrent radiation for newly diagnosed GBM seems to be well tolerated and comparable to temozolomide and radiation. A gene expression profile predictive of patient outcome that may be useful in patient stratification for therapy was also elucidated. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR.
Authors: Adam Steg; Wenquan Wang; Carmelo Blanquicett; Jessica M Grunda; Isam A Eltoum; Kangsheng Wang; Donald J Buchsbaum; Selwyn M Vickers; Suzanne Russo; Robert B Diasio; Andra R Frost; Al F LoBuglio; William E Grizzle; Martin R Johnson Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: M Wasif Saif; Mohammaed A Eloubeidi; Suzanne Russo; Adam Steg; Jennifer Thornton; John Fiveash; Mark Carpenter; Carmello Blanquicett; Robert B Diasio; Martin R Johnson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T L Cascino; M H Veeder; J C Buckner; J R O'Fallon; M Wiesenfeld; R Levitt; R M Goldberg; S A Kuross; R F Morton; B W Scheithauer Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Roger Stupp; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Michael Weller; Barbara Fisher; Martin J B Taphoorn; Karl Belanger; Alba A Brandes; Christine Marosi; Ulrich Bogdahn; Jürgen Curschmann; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Thierry Gorlia; Anouk Allgeier; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; René O Mirimanoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Yamashita; T Hashimoto; T Hirakawa; T Fukushima; M Tomonaga; Y Hara; A Kono; M Tanaka Journal: Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) Date: 1985-08 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Jeroen E J Guikema; Rachel M Gerstein; Erin K Linehan; Erin K Cloherty; Eric Evan-Browning; Daisuke Tsuchimoto; Yusaku Nakabeppu; Carol E Schrader Journal: J Immunol Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Lindsay B Kilburn; Mehmet Kocak; Patricia Baxter; Tina Young Poussaint; Arnold C Paulino; Christine McIntyre; Annabelle Lemenuel-Diot; Christine Lopez-Diaz; Larry Kun; Murali Chintagumpala; Jack M Su; Alberto Broniscer; Justin N Baker; Eugene I Hwang; Maryam Fouladi; James M Boyett; Susan M Blaney Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Jennifer M Atkinson; Anang A Shelat; Angel Montero Carcaboso; Tanya A Kranenburg; Leggy A Arnold; Nidal Boulos; Karen Wright; Robert A Johnson; Helen Poppleton; Kumarasamypet M Mohankumar; Clementine Féau; Timothy Phoenix; Paul Gibson; Liqin Zhu; Yiai Tong; Chris Eden; David W Ellison; Waldemar Priebe; Dimpy Koul; W K Alfred Yung; Amar Gajjar; Clinton F Stewart; R Kiplin Guy; Richard J Gilbertson Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Lindsay B Kilburn; Mehmet Kocak; Franziska Schaedeli Stark; Georgina Meneses-Lorente; Carrie Brownstein; Sazzad Hussain; Murali Chintagumpala; Patrick A Thompson; Sri Gururangan; Anuradha Banerjee; Arnold C Paulino; Larry Kun; James M Boyett; Susan M Blaney Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Karen D Wright; Vinay M Daryani; David C Turner; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Nidal Boulos; Brent A Orr; Richard J Gilbertson; Clinton F Stewart; Amar Gajjar Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 12.300