BACKGROUND: Cilengitide, an αv integrin antagonist, has demonstrated activity in recurrent adult glioblastoma (GBM). The Children's Oncology Group ACNS0621 study thus evaluated whether cilengitide is active as a single agent in the treatment of children with refractory high-grade glioma (HGG). Secondary objectives were to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of cilengitide in this population. METHODS: Cilengitide (1800 mg/m(2)/dose intravenous) was administered twice weekly until evidence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thirty patients (age range, 1.1-20.3 years) were enrolled, of whom 24 were evaluable for the primary response end point. RESULTS: Toxicity was infrequent and mild, with the exception of one episode of grade 2 pain possibly related to cilengitide. Two intratumoral hemorrhages were reported, but only one (grade 2) was deemed to be possibly related to cilengitide and was in the context of disease progression. One patient with GBM received cilengitide for 20 months and remains alive with continuous stable disease. There were no other responders, with median time to tumor progression of 28 days (range, 11-114 days). Twenty-one of the 24 evaluable patients died, with a median time from enrollment to death of 172 days (range, 28-325 days). The 3 patients alive at the time of this report had a follow-up time of 37, 223, and 1068 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that cilengitide is not effective as a single agent for refractory pediatric HGG. However, further study evaluating combination therapy with cilengitide is warranted before a role for cilengitide in the treatment of pediatric HGG can be excluded.
BACKGROUND: Cilengitide, an αv integrin antagonist, has demonstrated activity in recurrent adult glioblastoma (GBM). The Children's Oncology Group ACNS0621 study thus evaluated whether cilengitide is active as a single agent in the treatment of children with refractory high-grade glioma (HGG). Secondary objectives were to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of cilengitide in this population. METHODS: Cilengitide (1800 mg/m(2)/dose intravenous) was administered twice weekly until evidence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thirty patients (age range, 1.1-20.3 years) were enrolled, of whom 24 were evaluable for the primary response end point. RESULTS:Toxicity was infrequent and mild, with the exception of one episode of grade 2 pain possibly related to cilengitide. Two intratumoral hemorrhages were reported, but only one (grade 2) was deemed to be possibly related to cilengitide and was in the context of disease progression. One patient with GBM received cilengitide for 20 months and remains alive with continuous stable disease. There were no other responders, with median time to tumor progression of 28 days (range, 11-114 days). Twenty-one of the 24 evaluable patients died, with a median time from enrollment to death of 172 days (range, 28-325 days). The 3 patients alive at the time of this report had a follow-up time of 37, 223, and 1068 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that cilengitide is not effective as a single agent for refractory pediatric HGG. However, further study evaluating combination therapy with cilengitide is warranted before a role for cilengitide in the treatment of pediatric HGG can be excluded.
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; John Kuhn; Kathleen R Lamborn; Frank Lieberman; Patrick Y Wen; Minesh Mehta; Timothy Cloughesy; Andrew B Lassman; Lisa M Deangelis; Susan Chang; Michael Prados Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Kenneth J Cohen; Ian F Pollack; Tianni Zhou; Allen Buxton; Emiko J Holmes; Peter C Burger; Daniel J Brat; Marc K Rosenblum; Ronald L Hamilton; Robert S Lavey; Richard L Heideman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: David A Reardon; James R Perry; Alba A Brandes; Rakesh Jalali; Wolfgang Wick Journal: Expert Opin Drug Discov Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 6.098
Authors: David A Reardon; Karen L Fink; Tom Mikkelsen; Timothy F Cloughesy; Alison O'Neill; Scott Plotkin; Michael Glantz; Paula Ravin; Jeffrey J Raizer; Keith M Rich; David Schiff; William R Shapiro; Susan Burdette-Radoux; Edward J Dropcho; Sabine M Wittemer; Johannes Nippgen; Martin Picard; L Burt Nabors Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tobey J MacDonald; Clinton F Stewart; Mehmet Kocak; Stewart Goldman; Richard G Ellenbogen; Peter Phillips; Deborah Lafond; Tina Young Poussaint; Mark W Kieran; James M Boyett; Larry E Kun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tom Mikkelsen; Chaya Brodie; Susan Finniss; Michael E Berens; Jessica L Rennert; Kevin Nelson; Nancy Lemke; Stephen L Brown; Diane Hahn; Berend Neuteboom; Simon L Goodman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Megan O Jacus; Vinay M Daryani; K Elaine Harstead; Yogesh T Patel; Stacy L Throm; Clinton F Stewart Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: John Glod; Gilbert J Rahme; Harpreet Kaur; Eric H Raabe; Eugene I Hwang; Mark A Israel Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: Barrie Cohen; Michael Roth; Jonathan M Marron; Stacy W Gray; David S Geller; Bang Hoang; Richard Gorlick; Katherine A Janeway; Jonathan Gill Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Z Gokce-Samar; P A Beuriat; C Faure-Conter; C Carrie; S Chabaud; L Claude; F Di Rocco; C Mottolese; A Szathmari; C Chabert; D Frappaz Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 1.475