liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial
Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Cell Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Local Health Care Services in Central Östergötland, LAH Linköping.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8410-4939
St Olav's Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Medical University of Vienna, Austria .
Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.
Show others and affiliations
2012 (English)In: The Lancet Oncology, ISSN 1470-2045, E-ISSN 1474-5488, Vol. 13, no 9, p. 916-926Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Most patients with glioblastoma are older than 60 years, but treatment guidelines are based on trials in patients aged only up to 70 years. We did a randomised trial to assess the optimum palliative treatment in patients aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanMethods Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were recruited from Austria, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. They were assigned by a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre, to receive temozolomide (200 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 of every 28 days for up to six cycles), hypofractionated radiotherapy (34.0 Gy administered in 3.4 Gy fractions over 2 weeks), or standard radiotherapy (60.0 Gy administered in 2.0 Gy fractions over 6 weeks). Patients and study staff were aware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN81470623. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanFindings 342 patients were enrolled, of whom 291 were randomised across three treatment groups (temozolomide n=93, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=98, standard radiotherapy n=100) and 51 of whom were randomised across only two groups (temozolomide n=26, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=25). In the three-group randomisation, in comparison with standard radiotherapy, median overall survival was significantly longer with temozolomide (8.3 months [95% CI 7.1-9.5; n=93] vs 6.0 months [95% CI 5.1-6.8; n=100], hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-0.93, p=0.01), but not with hypofractionated radiotherapy (7.5 months [6.5-8.6; n=98], HR 0.85 [0.64-1.12], p=0.24). For all patients who received temozolomide or hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=242) overall survival was similar (8.4 months [7.3-9.4; n=119] vs 7.4 months [6.4-8.4; n=123]; HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63-1.06; p=0.12). For age older than 70 years, survival was better with temozolomide and with hypofractionated radiotherapy than with standard radiotherapy (HR for temozolomide vs standard radiotherapy 0.35 [0.21-0.56], pandlt;0.0001; HR for hypofractionated vs standard radiotherapy 0.59 [95% CI 0.37-0.93], p=0.02). Patients treated with temozolomide who had tumour MGMT promoter methylation had significantly longer survival than those without MGMT promoter methylation (9.7 months [95% CI 8.0-11.4] vs 6.8 months [5.9-7.7]; HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.34-0.93], p=0.02), but no difference was noted between those with methylated and unmethylated MGMT promoter treated with radiotherapy (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.69-1.38]; p=0.81). As expected, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the temozolomide group were neutropenia (n=12) and thrombocytopenia (n=18). Grade 3-5 infections in all randomisation groups were reported in 18 patients. Two patients had fatal infections (one in the temozolomide group and one in the standard radiotherapy group) and one in the temozolomide group with grade 2 thrombocytopenia died from complications after surgery for a gastrointestinal bleed. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanInterpretation Standard radiotherapy was associated with poor outcomes, especially in patients older than 70 years. Both temozolomide and hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered as standard treatment options in elderly patients with glioblastoma. MGMT promoter methylation status might be a useful predictive marker for benefit from temozolomide.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier , 2012. Vol. 13, no 9, p. 916-926
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-84333DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70265-6ISI: 000308425600019OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-84333DiVA, id: diva2:558925
Note

Funding Agencies|Merck||Lions Cancer Research Foundation||University of Umea||Swedish Cancer Society||Schering-Plough||University of Umea, Sweden||Cancer Fonden, Sweden||

Available from: 2012-10-05 Created: 2012-10-05 Last updated: 2019-11-06
In thesis
1. Studies for Better Treatment of Patients with Glioma
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Studies for Better Treatment of Patients with Glioma
2019 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

In Sweden annually over 500 people will be diagnosed with the malignant brain tumor glioma. They are graded from I-IV. The majority are glioblastoma (grade IV) (GBM), these being the most aggressive type. Median survival for those treated with standard of care is expected to be around 15 months. This tumor will mainly affect those 60 years or older.

The studies in this thesis focus on treatment of patients with malignant gliomas grade III and IV. The aim of the studies is to improve the care of glioma patients. Papers I and II explored different therapeutic options in randomized trials, to facilitate individualized treatment recommendations. Findings from studies I and II, together with additional trials, demonstrated the importance of analyzing the tumor marker O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation status for survival of GBM patients treated with Temozolomide (TMZ). The third paper investigated how the analysis of this marker is implemented internationally.

The first study (paper I, Nordic trial) investigated treatment options for patients 60 years or older with GBM. The trial compared standard radiotherapy (SRT) over 6 weeks versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) over 2 weeks versus single agent TMZ administered in up to six 4 weekly cycles. In all, 342 patients were included in the trial. This study demonstrated that those randomized to TMZ had superior survival as compared to SRT. In addition, quality of life (QoL) data also suggested a better QoL for TMZ treatment than for radiotherapy. The benefit of TMZ treatment seemed to be limited to those with the tumor molecular marker MGMT methylated (inactivated).

The second trial (paper II, Neoadjuvant trial) studied whether integrating TMZ treatment with SRT for patients younger than 60 years with GBM (grade IV) and astrocytoma grade III would confer a survival benefit, if administered postoperatively, before the start of SRT (neoadjuvant). TMZ was provided for 2-3 four weekly cycles followed by SRT to patients randomized to neoadjuvant treatment and was compared to postoperative SRT alone. Although this trial could not illustrate any advantage of delaying the start of SRT while administering TMZ for the study cohort in general, for those included as astrocytoma grade III the median survival was found to be superior by 5 years when randomized to neoadjuvant TMZ. This trial also confirmed the importance of MGMT promoter methylation for the efficacy of TMZ.

The third study (paper III) investigated international practices for analyzing tumor MGMT promoter methylation status. MGMT analysis can be conducted by various laboratory methods, which in some cases can provide opposing results regarding the MGMT methylation status of the patient´s tumor. This can lead to incorrect treatment recommendations. To establish which methods and cut-offs that are regularly used to determine tumor MGMT status in the clinic, an international survey was provided to those working in the field. We also inquired about opinions regarding an international consensus on how MGMT should be tested. The 152 respondents reported several methodologies and different cut-off levels also for the same method. A majority of respondents warrant international guidelines.

In conclusion, the results of the 2 randomized trials contribute to individualized treatment recommendations for patients affected by GBM or astrocytoma grade III. The results of the survey regarding analyses of MGMT clarify the current problematic situation. The request of the respondents regarding international guidelines might contribute to their future development, so that personalized treatment recommendations can be improved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2019. p. 73
Series
Linköping University Medical Dissertations, ISSN 0345-0082 ; 1709
National Category
Medical Bioscience Clinical Laboratory Medicine Cancer and Oncology Surgery Nursing Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161677 (URN)10.3384/diss.diva-161677 (DOI)9789179299798 (ISBN)
Public defence
2019-11-22, Linden, Campus US, Linköping, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Funder
Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden (FORSS)Swedish Cancer SocietyRegion Östergötland
Note

Supporter of this thesis not mentioned above are LiUCancer and NSC research grant; Linköping University Hospital for Neuro-research, Lion's Cancer Foundation, Cancer Foundation Norrland and Rotary Borgholm research grant.

Available from: 2019-11-06 Created: 2019-11-06 Last updated: 2019-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Malmström, AnnikaRosell, Johan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Malmström, AnnikaRosell, Johan
By organisation
Cell BiologyFaculty of Health SciencesLAH LinköpingOncologyRegional Cancer Centre
In the same journal
The Lancet Oncology
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 379 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf