| Literature DB >> 34657224 |
Jonas E Adolph1, Gudrun Fleischhack1, Christine Gaab1, Ruth Mikasch1, Martin Mynarek2, Stefan Rutkowski2, Ulrich Schüller2,3,4, Stefan M Pfister5,6,7, Kristian W Pajtler5,6,7, Till Milde5,6,7,8, Olaf Witt5,6,7,8, Brigitte Bison9, Monika Warmuth-Metz10, Rolf-Dieter Kortmann11, Stefan Dietzsch11,12, Torsten Pietsch13, Beate Timmermann12, Stephan Tippelt14.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Survival in recurrent ependymoma (EPN) depends mainly on the extent of resection achieved. When complete resection is not feasible, chemotherapy is often used to extend progression-free and overall survival. However, no consistent effect of chemotherapy on survival has been found in patients with recurrent EPN.Entities:
Keywords: Chemotherapy; Children; Ependymoma; Recurrence; Sirolimus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34657224 PMCID: PMC8585796 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-021-03867-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurooncol ISSN: 0167-594X Impact factor: 4.130
Patient characteristics at first recurrence
| Characteristic | N = 138 (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 90 (65.2%) | |
| Female | 48 (34.8%) | |
| Localisation at first diagnosis | ||
| Supratentorial | 31 (22.5%) | |
| Infratentorial | 103 (74.6%) | |
| Spinal | 4 (2.9%) | |
| Histological tumor grade | ||
| WHO °II | 13 (9.4%) | |
| WHO °III | 125 (90.6%) | |
| Molecular subgroup | 89 (64) | |
| PF-A | 66 (74.2%) | |
| PF-B | 2 (2.2%) | |
| ZFTA | 18 (20.2%) | |
| YAP1 | 2 (2.2%) | |
| MYCN | 1 (1.1%) | |
| Median age at first recurrence; years (IQR) | 7.6 (4.0, 13.6) | |
| Median time to first recurrence, months (IQR) | 22.8 (14.4, 39.9) | |
| Metastatic stage at first recurrence | ||
| M0 | 74 (53.6%) | |
| M1 | 4 (2.9%) | |
| M2 | 25 (18.1%) | |
| M3 | 33 (23.9%) | |
| M4 | 2 (1.4%) | |
| Surgery at first recurrence | 105 (76) | |
| GTR | 62 (59.0%) | |
| NTR | 32 (30.5%) | |
| STR | 8 (7.6%) | |
| Biopsy | 3 (2.9%) | |
| Radiotherapy at first recurrence | 70 (51) | |
| CSI | 23 (32.9%) | |
| Focal radiotherapy | 47 (67.1%) | |
| Median target volume dose of focal radiotherapy; Gy (IQR) | 69 (50) | 50.4 (46.0, 54.0) |
| Median target volume dose of CSI; Gy (IQR) | 22 (16) | 35.2 (35.2, 35.2) |
| Radiotherapy at initial diagnosis | 120 (87.0%) | |
| Median target volume dose at initial diagnosis; Gy (IQR) | 59.4 (54.0, 68.0) | |
| Chemotherapy at initial diagnosis | 108 (78.3%) | |
| Chemotherapy at 1st recurrence | 99 (71.7%) | |
| Chemotherapy at 2nd recurrence | 47 (34.1%) | |
| Chemotherapy at 3rd recurrence | 29 (21.0%) | |
| Chemotherapy at 4th recurrence | 14 (10.1%) | |
| Chemotherapy at 5th recurrence | 8 (5.8%) |
IQR interquartile range, GTR gross-total resection, NTR near-total resection, STR subtotal resection, CSI craniospinal irradiation
Eight most frequently used chemotherapy drugs with evaluable responses
| Drug | n | CR | PR | SD | PD | ORR (%) | RR (%) | Median duration of response | Median time to progression |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Etoposide | 54 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 33 | 5.6 | 38.9 | 0 (CI 0; 5.04) | 3.54 (CI 1.64; 12.45) |
| Temozolomide | 46 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 33 | 8.7 | 28.3 | 0 (CI 0; 0.79) | 2.64 (CI 1.59; 8.09) |
| Trofosfamide | 30 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 19 | 3.3 | 36.7 | 0 (CI 0; 6.13) | 4 (CI 1.81; 11.44) |
| Carboplatin | 20 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 40 | 0 (CI 0; 4.69) | 3.93 (CI 1.71; 12.87) |
| Cyclophosphamide | 13 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 38.5 | 0 (CI 0; 2.24) | 3.17 (CI 1.93; 8.97) |
| Vincristine | 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 33.3 | 0 (CI 0; 2.64) | 3.29 (CI 2.2; 7.46) |
| Sirolimus | 8 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 50 | 1.28 (CI 0; 5.95) | 11.51 (CI 4.22; 14) |
| Topotecan | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 (CI 0; 0) | 1.32 (CI 0.55; 1.61) |
n Number of times used, CR complete remission, PR partial remission, SD disease stabilization, PD progressive disease, ORR objective response-rate, RR response-rate, CI 95% confidence-interval
Fig. 1Patients with subtotal or no resection at any recurrence and a PFS of over 12 months. Ongoing response denoted at date of last follow-up. Patient (P) 1: 1st recurrence, Vincristine + Cyclophosphamide + Carboplatin + Etoposide (HIT-SKK); P2: 3rd recurrence, Etoposide + Trofosfamide (HIT-REZ 2005); P3: 1st recurrence, HIT-SKK then Actinomycin D + Etoposide + Trofosfamide; P4: 5th recurrence, 5-FU; P5: 1st recurrence, Etoposide + Trofosfamide (HIT-REZ 2005); P6: 1st recurrence, Temozolomide, P7: 2nd recurrence, Temozolomide (HIT-REZ 2005)
List of all patients treated with Sirolimus
| Patient | Sex | Age at first recurrence (years) | Initial tumor site | Molecular subgroup | Recurrence number at Sirolimus application | Combination partner(s) | Resection at same recurrence | Radiation at same recurrence | Best response | Time to progression (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | 3.4 | Infratentorial | 4 | + Imatinib, Topotecan, Temozolomide | NTR | No | PD | 1.3 | |
| 2 | Male | 3.6 | Infratentorial | PF-A | 2 | + Dasatinib, Irinotecan, Temozolomide | NTR | Yes | SD | 15.3 |
| 3 | Male | 3.1 | Infratentorial | PF-A | 3 | – | No resection | Yes | SD | 24.0 |
| 4 | Female | 8.9 | Infratentorial | 3 | + Dasatinib, Irinotecan, Temozolomide | STR | Yes | PD | 4.9 | |
| 5 | Male | 10.1 | Infratentorial | PF-A | 3 | – | No resection | Yes | PD | 13.5 |
| 4 | – | STR | No | PD | 2.3 | |||||
| 6 | Female | 2.8 | Infratentorial | PF-A | 2 | + Dasatinib, Irinotecan, Temozolomide | No resection | Yes | SD | 13.5 |
| 7 | Male | 0.9 | Infratentorial | ZFTA | 3 | – | No resection | Yes | SD | 15.6 |
| 7 | Male | 0.9 | Infratentorial | ZFTA | 4 | – | GTR | No | n.e | 40.2+ |
| 8 | Male | 4.5 | Infratentorial | PF-A | 1 | + Sunitinib, Irinotecan, Temozolomide | GTR | No | n.e | 5.8 |
| 9 | Male | 3.3 | Infratentorial | PF-A | 1 | – | GTR | Yes | n.e | 53.6 |
Best response could only be evaluated if previous to response measurement no surgery was performed or enough rest-tumor was present after surgery to measure the response to the applied chemotherapy
GTR gross-total resection, NTR near-total resection, STR sub-total resection, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, n.e. not evaluable
+ indicates ongoing response at last follow-up
Cox-regression comparing OS depending on whether or not a patient received specific chemotherapy drugs
| Subgroup | Chemotherapy | HR | 95%-CI | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Temozolomide | 0.7 | (0.5–1.1) | 0.1 |
| Sirolimus | 0.7 | (0.3–1.7) | 0.44 | |
| Vincristine | 0.97 | (0.5–1.7) | 0.93 | |
| PFA | Temozolomide | 0.71 | (0.4–1.4) | 0.31 |
| Sirolimus | 0.85 | (0.3–2.4) | 0.75 | |
| Trofosfamide | 0.89 | (0.5–1.7) | 0.72 | |
| PFA/1q+ | Trofosfamide | 0.6 | (0.2–1.7) | 0.34 |
| Cyclophosphamide | 0.7 | (0.2–2.4) | 0.57 | |
| Temozolomide | 0.85 | (0.3–2.2) | 0.74 | |
| PFA/1q− | Sirolimus | 0.39 | (0.1–3) | 0.36 |
| Temozolomide | 0.61 | (0.2–1.6) | 0.31 | |
| Trofosfamide | 1.2 | (0.5–3.1) | 0.7 | |
| ZFTA | Trofosfamide | 0.67 | (0.2–2.6) | 0.56 |
| Temozolomide | 0.76 | (0.2–2.6) | 0.66 | |
| Cyclophosphamide | 1 | (0.2–4.7) | 1 |
HR hazard ratio, 95%-CI 95% confidence-interval