Literature DB >> 22877848

Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial.

Annika Malmström1, Bjørn Henning Grønberg, Christine Marosi, Roger Stupp, Didier Frappaz, Henrik Schultz, Ufuk Abacioglu, Björn Tavelin, Benoit Lhermitte, Monika E Hegi, Johan Rosell, Roger Henriksson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most patients with glioblastoma are older than 60 years, but treatment guidelines are based on trials in patients aged only up to 70 years. We did a randomised trial to assess the optimum palliative treatment in patients aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma.
METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were recruited from Austria, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. They were assigned by a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre, to receive temozolomide (200 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 of every 28 days for up to six cycles), hypofractionated radiotherapy (34·0 Gy administered in 3·4 Gy fractions over 2 weeks), or standard radiotherapy (60·0 Gy administered in 2·0 Gy fractions over 6 weeks). Patients and study staff were aware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN81470623.
FINDINGS: 342 patients were enrolled, of whom 291 were randomised across three treatment groups (temozolomide n=93, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=98, standard radiotherapy n=100) and 51 of whom were randomised across only two groups (temozolomide n=26, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=25). In the three-group randomisation, in comparison with standard radiotherapy, median overall survival was significantly longer with temozolomide (8·3 months [95% CI 7·1-9·5; n=93] vs 6·0 months [95% CI 5·1-6·8; n=100], hazard ratio [HR] 0·70; 95% CI 0·52-0·93, p=0·01), but not with hypofractionated radiotherapy (7·5 months [6·5-8·6; n=98], HR 0·85 [0·64-1·12], p=0·24). For all patients who received temozolomide or hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=242) overall survival was similar (8·4 months [7·3-9·4; n=119] vs 7·4 months [6·4-8·4; n=123]; HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·06; p=0·12). For age older than 70 years, survival was better with temozolomide and with hypofractionated radiotherapy than with standard radiotherapy (HR for temozolomide vs standard radiotherapy 0·35 [0·21-0·56], p<0·0001; HR for hypofractionated vs standard radiotherapy 0·59 [95% CI 0·37-0·93], p=0·02). Patients treated with temozolomide who had tumour MGMT promoter methylation had significantly longer survival than those without MGMT promoter methylation (9·7 months [95% CI 8·0-11·4] vs 6·8 months [5·9-7·7]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·34-0·93], p=0·02), but no difference was noted between those with methylated and unmethylated MGMT promoter treated with radiotherapy (HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·69-1·38]; p=0·81). As expected, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the temozolomide group were neutropenia (n=12) and thrombocytopenia (n=18). Grade 3-5 infections in all randomisation groups were reported in 18 patients. Two patients had fatal infections (one in the temozolomide group and one in the standard radiotherapy group) and one in the temozolomide group with grade 2 thrombocytopenia died from complications after surgery for a gastrointestinal bleed.
INTERPRETATION: Standard radiotherapy was associated with poor outcomes, especially in patients older than 70 years. Both temozolomide and hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered as standard treatment options in elderly patients with glioblastoma. MGMT promoter methylation status might be a useful predictive marker for benefit from temozolomide. FUNDING: Merck, Lion's Cancer Research Foundation, University of Umeå, and the Swedish Cancer Society.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22877848     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70265-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  418 in total

1.  MGMT Promoter Methylation Cutoff with Safety Margin for Selecting Glioblastoma Patients into Trials Omitting Temozolomide: A Pooled Analysis of Four Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Monika E Hegi; Els Genbrugge; Thierry Gorlia; Roger Stupp; Mark R Gilbert; Olivier L Chinot; L Burt Nabors; Greg Jones; Wim Van Criekinge; Josef Straub; Michael Weller
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  Treatment considerations for MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma.

Authors:  Jennie W Taylor; David Schiff
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.081

Review 3.  Treatment of Glioblastoma in the Elderly.

Authors:  Rebecca A Harrison; John F de Groot
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 4.  Treatment-related changes in glioblastoma: a review on the controversies in response assessment criteria and the concepts of true progression, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse and radionecrosis.

Authors:  P D Delgado-López; E Riñones-Mena; E M Corrales-García
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  Defining optimal cutoff value of MGMT promoter methylation by ROC analysis for clinical setting in glioblastoma patients.

Authors:  Guoqiang Yuan; Liang Niu; Yinian Zhang; Xiaoqing Wang; Kejun Ma; Hang Yin; Junqiang Dai; Wangning Zhou; Yawen Pan
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Recurrent glioblastomas in the elderly after maximal first-line treatment: does preserved overall condition warrant a maximal second-line treatment?

Authors:  Marc Zanello; Alexandre Roux; Renata Ursu; Sophie Peeters; Luc Bauchet; Georges Noel; Jacques Guyotat; Pierre-Jean Le Reste; Thierry Faillot; Fabien Litre; Nicolas Desse; Evelyne Emery; Antoine Petit; Johann Peltier; Jimmy Voirin; François Caire; Jean-Luc Barat; Jean-Rodolphe Vignes; Philippe Menei; Olivier Langlois; Edouard Dezamis; Antoine Carpentier; Phong Dam Hieu; Philippe Metellus; Johan Pallud
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Superiority of temozolomide over radiotherapy for elderly patients with RTK II methylation class, MGMT promoter methylated malignant astrocytoma.

Authors:  Antje Wick; Tobias Kessler; Michael Platten; Christoph Meisner; Michael Bamberg; Ulrich Herrlinger; Jörg Felsberg; Astrid Weyerbrock; Kirsten Papsdorf; Joachim P Steinbach; Michael Sabel; Jan Vesper; Jürgen Debus; Jürgen Meixensberger; Ralf Ketter; Caroline Hertler; Regine Mayer-Steinacker; Sarah Weisang; Hanna Bölting; David Reuss; Guido Reifenberger; Felix Sahm; Andreas von Deimling; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 12.300

8.  Posttreatment Effect of MGMT Methylation Level on Glioblastoma Survival.

Authors:  Rikke H Dahlrot; Pia Larsen; Henning B Boldt; Melissa S Kreutzfeldt; Steinbjørn Hansen; Jacob B Hjelmborg; Bjarne Winther Kristensen
Journal:  J Neuropathol Exp Neurol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 3.685

9.  Treatment and survival of glioblastoma patients in Denmark: The Danish Neuro-Oncology Registry 2009-2014.

Authors:  Steinbjørn Hansen; Birthe Krogh Rasmussen; René Johannes Laursen; Michael Kosteljanetz; Henrik Schultz; Bente Mertz Nørgård; Rikke Guldberg; Kim Oren Gradel
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 10.  Personalized care in neuro-oncology coming of age: why we need MGMT and 1p/19q testing for malignant glioma patients in clinical practice.

Authors:  Michael Weller; Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Martin van den Bent; Joerg C Tonn; Marc Sanson; Wolfgang Wick; Guido Reifenberger
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 12.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.