| Literature DB >> 35359419 |
Jia Zhu1,2, Juan Wang1,2, Feifei Sun1,2, Zijun Zhen1,2, Tingting Chen1,2, Suying Lu1,2, Junting Huang1,2, Yizhuo Zhang1,2, Xiaofei Sun1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: The combination of irinotecan, temozolomide and vincristine has been proposed as an effective salvage regimen for some pediatric malignancies. Thus, we sought to evaluate this combination for patients with relapsed and refractory neuroblastoma (NB). Patients andEntities:
Keywords: efficacy; irinotecan; neuroblastoma; refractory; relapse; temozolomide; toxicity; vincristine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35359419 PMCID: PMC8961432 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.804310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Patient characteristics (n=46).
| Category | No. of Patients |
|---|---|
| Total | 46 |
| Age at enrollment, m, median(range) | 47.6 (16.0~145.0) |
| Time to first PD, m, median(range) | 19.2 (3.0~47.7) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 29 |
| Female | 17 |
| Stage at initial diagnosis | |
| II | 1 |
| III | 8 |
| IV | 37 |
| Risk stratification | |
| Intermediate-risk | 5 |
| High-risk | 41 |
| Yes | 8 |
| No | 27 |
| Unknown | 11 |
| Location of recurrence/PD | |
| Mediastinum | 6 |
| Abdomen | 6 |
| Brain | 7 |
| Bone marrow/bone | 15 |
| Lymph node | 9 |
| Multiple sites | 3 |
Response to VIT chemotherapy for patients with refractory/relapsed neuroblastoma.
| Variables | Number |
|---|---|
| Total VIT courses | 251 |
| Median VIT course | 6 (2-10) |
| Cycles of VIT at best response to VIT | |
| Median | 4 |
| VIT line for refractory/relapsed neuroblastoma | |
| First-line | 6 |
| Second-line | 33 |
| Third-line | 6 |
| Fourth-line | 1 |
| Overall responses after VIT therapy | |
| CR | 5 |
| PR | 27 |
| SD | 8 |
| PD | 6 |
VIT, vincristine, irinotecan, and temozolomide; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progression disease.
Response to VIT chemotherapy based on sites at relapse/progression.
| Sites | No. of patients | Best response | ORR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR | PR | SD | PD | (%) | ||
| Mediastinum | 6 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Abdomen | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 50.0 |
| Brain | 7 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 42.9 |
| Bone marrow | 15 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 80.0 |
| Lymph nodes | 9 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 77.8 |
| Multiple sites (≥3 sites) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
VIT, vincristine, irinotecan and temozolomide; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; PD, progressive disease; SD, stable disease; ORR, objective response rate.
Regarding clinical benefit, VIT has shown the best response rate (illustrated in the bold values) in the whole cohort regardless of involved sites.
Response to VIT chemotherapy as salvage regimen after relapse or progression.
| VIT line | No. of patients | Best response | ORR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR | PR | SD | PD | (%) | ||
| First | 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 |
| Second | 33 | 6 | 18 | 8 | 1 | 72.7 |
| Third | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 83.3 |
| Fourth | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – |
VIT, vincristine, irinotecan and temozolomide; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; PD, progressive disease; SD, stable disease; ORR, objective response rate.
Hematological and non-hematological toxicities.
| Toxicity | Number |
|---|---|
| Neutropenia | |
| 0 | 4 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 7 |
| 3 | 18 |
| 4 | 14 |
| Thrombocytopenia | |
| 0 | 25 |
| 1 | 12 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 3 |
| Abdominal pain/diarrhea | |
| 0 | 28 |
| 1 | 10 |
| 2 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 |
| Nausea | |
| 0 | 28 |
| 1 | 15 |
| 2 | 3 |
| Constipation | |
| 0 | 39 |
| 1 | 5 |
| 2 | 2 |
| Vomiting | |
| 0 | 33 |
| 1 | 8 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 2 |
| Oral mucositis | |
| 0 | 44 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 1Survival rates from the initiation of VIT to progression or relapse. (months).