PURPOSE: The treatment outcome of pediatric refractory or relapsed brain tumor is very dismal, and effective salvage chemotherapy is not established. The combination of irinotecan, vincristine, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide was administered to pediatric patients with refractory or relapsed brain tumors as a salvage treatment at our institution. METHODS: The combination regimen was administered since June 2006 and consisted of irinotecan (300 mg/m(2), d0), vincristine (2 mg/m(2), d0), cisplatin (60 mg/m(2), d0), cyclophosphamide (1,000 mg/m(2), d1), and etoposide (100 mg/m(2)/day, d0-2). Patients could concurrently receive radiotherapy, surgery, and/or high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue. The medical records of all patients were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with refractory or relapsed brain tumor were included (medulloblastoma, n = 12; central nervous system primitive neuroectodermal tumor, n = 1). Median time from diagnosis to this combination chemotherapy was 30 months (range, 3-111 months), and median cycle administered was four cycles (range 1-22 cycles). Objective tumor response at the end of chemotherapy was 38.5 % including three patients with complete response and two with partial response. One patient showed complete response and achieved long-term survival with this combination chemotherapy, and two patients achieved long-term survival with multimodality treatments. There was no grade III or IV toxicity related to this combination chemotherapy except for thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of irinotecan, vincristine, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide may produce objective responses in pediatric patients with refractory or relapsed medulloblastoma or primitive neuroectodermal tumor.
PURPOSE: The treatment outcome of pediatric refractory or relapsed brain tumor is very dismal, and effective salvage chemotherapy is not established. The combination of irinotecan, vincristine, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide was administered to pediatric patients with refractory or relapsed brain tumors as a salvage treatment at our institution. METHODS: The combination regimen was administered since June 2006 and consisted of irinotecan (300 mg/m(2), d0), vincristine (2 mg/m(2), d0), cisplatin (60 mg/m(2), d0), cyclophosphamide (1,000 mg/m(2), d1), and etoposide (100 mg/m(2)/day, d0-2). Patients could concurrently receive radiotherapy, surgery, and/or high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue. The medical records of all patients were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with refractory or relapsed brain tumor were included (medulloblastoma, n = 12; central nervous system primitive neuroectodermal tumor, n = 1). Median time from diagnosis to this combination chemotherapy was 30 months (range, 3-111 months), and median cycle administered was four cycles (range 1-22 cycles). Objective tumor response at the end of chemotherapy was 38.5 % including three patients with complete response and two with partial response. One patient showed complete response and achieved long-term survival with this combination chemotherapy, and two patients achieved long-term survival with multimodality treatments. There was no grade III or IV toxicity related to this combination chemotherapy except for thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of irinotecan, vincristine, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide may produce objective responses in pediatric patients with refractory or relapsed medulloblastoma or primitive neuroectodermal tumor.
Authors: Ira J Dunkel; Sharon L Gardner; James H Garvin; Stewart Goldman; Weiji Shi; Jonathan L Finlay Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: D M Ashley; L Meier; T Kerby; F M Zalduondo; H S Friedman; A Gajjar; L Kun; P K Duffner; S Smith; D Longee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Blaney; S L Berg; C Pratt; S Weitman; J Sullivan; L Luchtman-Jones; M Bernstein Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: T W Pendergrass; J M Milstein; J R Geyer; A F Mulne; E J Kosnik; J D Morris; R L Heideman; F B Ruymann; J T Stuntz; W A Bleyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1987-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C B Hare; G B Elion; P J Houghton; J A Houghton; S Keir; S L Marcelli; D D Bigner; H S Friedman Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 1997 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: G Vassal; I Boland; A Santos; M C Bissery; M J Terrier-Lacombe; J Morizet; C Sainte-Rose; A Lellouch-Tubiana; C Kalifa; A Gouyette Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1997-09-26 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Lisa R Bomgaars; Mark Bernstein; Mark Krailo; Richard Kadota; Soma Das; Zhengjia Chen; Peter C Adamson; Susan M Blaney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chie-Schin Shih; Gregory A Hale; Lindsey Gronewold; Xin Tong; Fred H Laningham; Elizabeth A Gilger; Deo Kumar Srivastava; Larry E Kun; Amar Gajjar; Maryam Fouladi Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C F Torres; S Rebsamen; J H Silber; L N Sutton; L T Bilaniuk; R A Zimmerman; J W Goldwein; P C Phillips; B J Lange Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Adam W Studebaker; Brian J Hutzen; Christopher R Pierson; Kellie B Haworth; Timothy P Cripe; Eric M Jackson; Jeffrey R Leonard Journal: Mol Ther Oncolytics Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 7.200
Authors: Rebecca M Hill; Sabine L A Plasschaert; Beate Timmermann; Christelle Dufour; Kristian Aquilina; Shivaram Avula; Laura Donovan; Maarten Lequin; Torsten Pietsch; Ulrich Thomale; Stephan Tippelt; Pieter Wesseling; Stefan Rutkowski; Steven C Clifford; Stefan M Pfister; Simon Bailey; Gudrun Fleischhack Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Seung Young Jin; Jung Yoon Choi; Kyung Duk Park; Hyoung Jin Kang; Hee Young Shin; Ji Hoon Phi; Seung-Ki Kim; Kyu-Chang Wang; Il Han Kim; Young Ah Lee; Choong Ho Shin; Sei Won Yang Journal: Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-06-20