Search

Purpose: Conventional MRI based on contrast enhancement is often not sufficient in differentiating grade II from grade III and grade III from grade IV diffuse gliomas. We assessed advanced MRI, MR spectroscopy and [(18)F]-fluoro-l-thymidine ([(18)F]-FLT) PET as tools to overcome these limitations., Methods: In this prospective study, thirty-nine patients with diffuse gliomas of grades II, III or IV underwent conventional MRI, perfusion, diffusion, proton MR spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS) and [(18)F]-FLT-PET imaging before surgery. Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), Cho/Cr, NAA/Cr, Cho/NAA and FLT-SUV were compared between grades., Results: Cho/Cr showed significant differences between grade II and grade III gliomas (p = 0.03). To discriminate grade II from grade IV and grade III from grade IV gliomas, the most relevant parameter was the maximum value of [(18)F]-FLT uptake FLTmax (respectively, p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001). The parameter showing the best correlation with the grade was the mean value of [(18)F]-FLT uptake FLTmean (R(2) = 0.36, p < 0.0001) and FLTmax (R(2) = 0.5, p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Whereas advanced MRI parameters give indications for the grading of gliomas, the addition of [(18)F]-FLT-PET could be of interest for the accurate preoperative classification of diffuse gliomas, particularly for identification of doubtful grade III and IV gliomas.

Background: Prognosis of unresectable glioblastoma (GB) remains poor, despite temozolomide (TMZ)-based chemoradiation. Activity of bevacizumab (BEV) and irinotecan (IRI) has been reported in recurrent disease. We evaluated BEV and IRI as neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatment combined with TMZ-based chemoradiation for unresectable GB., Patients and Methods: Patients with unresectable GB, age 18-70, IK ≥50 were eligible. The experimental arm (BEV/IRI) consisted of neo-adjuvant intravenous BEV, 10 mg/kg, and IRI, 125 mg/m(2), every 2 weeks for four cycles before radiotherapy (RT) (60 Gy), concomitant oral TMZ, 75 mg/m(2)/day, and BEV, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Adjuvant BEV and IRI were given every 2 weeks for 6 months. The control arm consisted of concomitant oral TMZ, 75 mg/m(2)/day during RT, and 150-200 mg/m(2) for 5 days every 28 days for 6 months. The use of BEV was allowed at progression in the control arm., Results: Patients (120) were included from April 2009 to January 2011. The working hypothesis was that treatment would increase the progression-free survival at 6 month (PFS-6) from 50% to 66%. The primary objective was not achieved, and only 30 out of 60 patients were alive without progression at 6 months (50.0% [IC95% (36.8; 63.1)] in the BEV/IRI arm when 37 out of 60 patients were required according to the Fleming decision rules. PFS-6 was 7.1 months in BEV/IRI versus 5.2 months in the control arm. The median overall survival was not different between the two arms (11.1 months). Main toxicities were three fatal intracranial bleedings, three bile duct or digestive perforations/infections (1 fatal), and six thrombotic episodes in the BEV/IRI arm, whereas there was one intracranial bleeding, two bile duct or digestive perforations/infections (1 fatal), and one thrombotic episode in the control arm., Conclusions: Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant BEV/IRI, combined with TMZ-radiation, is not recommended for further evaluation in the first-line treatment of unresectable GB., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical trial registered under EUDRACT number 2008-002775-28 (NCT01022918)., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Temozolomide has shown activity and limited toxicity in patients with primary brain tumors at doses of 150-200 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 every 4 weeks. In this study, a new alternative dose-dense regimen of temozolomide was explored in patients with recurrent brain tumors., Patients and Methods: In this study, we evaluated the safety, dose-limiting toxicity, maximum tolerated dose, recommended dose and activity of temozolomide given on days 1-3 and 14-16 every 28 days (one cycle). The starting daily dose was 200 mg/m(2) in a group of at least six patients, with subsequent increments of 50 mg/m(2) in groups of at least 12 patients until unacceptable toxicity was reached. Oral ondansetron (8 mg) was given 1 h prior to temozolomide administration. McDonald's criteria were used to evaluate antitumor activity., Results: Seventy patients with brain tumors entered this study. The median number of prior chemotherapy treatments was two (range 1-3). Patients were assigned to one of four groups to receive temozolomide at daily doses of 200 (seven patients), 250 (13 patients), 300 (38 patients) and 350 mg/m(2)/day (12 patients). The absence of dose-limiting toxicity at cycle 1 led us to establish dose recommendations based on toxicity after repeated cycles. A total of 23, 72, 192 and 83 cycles were given at daily doses of 200, 250, 300 and 350 mg/m(2), respectively. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 0/7, 1/13, 5/38 and 4/12 patients treated at doses of 200, 250, 300 and 350 mg/m(2)/day, respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was observed in 1/7, 0/13, 3/38 and 4/12 patients treated with 200, 250, 300 and 350 mg/m(2)/day temozolomide, respectively. At a dose of 350 mg/m(2), sustained grade 2-3 thrombocytopenia did not allow treatment to be resumed at day 14 in >40% of patients, and this dose was considered to be the maximum tolerated dose. Thus, a dose of 300 mg/m(2)/day that was associated with <20% treatment delay due to sustained hematological toxicity was considered as the recommended dose. Objective responses were reported in 13 patients., Conclusions: Temozolomide can be given safely using a dose-dense regimen of 300 mg/m(2)/day for 3 consecutive days every 2 weeks in patients with recurrent brain tumors.