Quick Search:

uzh logo
Browse by:
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

Zurich Open Repository and Archive

Permanent URL to this publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-32553

Dresemann, G; Weller, M; Rosenthal, M A; Wedding, U; Wagner, W; Engel, E; Heinrich, B; Mayer-Steinacker, R; Karup-Hansen, A; Fluge, O; Nowak, A; Mehdorn, M; Schleyer, E; Krex, D; Olver, I N; Steinbach, J P; Hosius, C; Sieder, C; Sorenson, G; Parker, R; Nikolova, Z (2010). Imatinib in combination with hydroxyurea versus hydroxyurea alone as oral therapy in patients with progressive pretreated glioblastoma resistant to standard dose temozolomide. Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 96(3):393-402.

[img] PDF - Registered users only
275kB

View at publisher
[img]
Preview
Accepted Version
PDF
1MB

Abstract

A randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study of patients with progressive, recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) for whom front-line therapy had failed was conducted. This study was designed to determine whether combination therapy with imatinib and hydroxyurea (HU) has superior antitumor activity compared with HU monotherapy in the treatment of recurrent GBM. The target population consisted of patients with confirmed recurrent GBM and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 who had completed previous treatment comprising surgical resection, irradiation therapy, and first-line chemotherapy (preferably temozolomide (TMZ) containing regimen) and who have progressed despite treatment. If first-line chemotherapy did not contain TMZ, a second completed chemotherapy was acceptable. The primary efficacy parameter was progression-free survival (PFS). The primary comparison of combination therapy versus monotherapy for PFS was not significant (adjusted P = 0.56). The hazard ratio (HR) (adjusted HR = 0.93) was not clinically relevant. The median PFS for the combination arm was low at 6 weeks and similar to the median PFS in the monotherapy arm (6 weeks). The 6-month PFS for the two treatment groups was very similar (5% in the combination arm vs. 7% in the monotherapy arm). No clinically meaningful differences were found between the two treatment arms, and the primary study end point was not met. Among the patients receiving imatinib, no adverse events were reported that were either previously unknown or unexpected as a consequence of the disease.

Citations

46 citations in Web of Science®
45 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

142 downloads since deposited on 15 Jul 2010
76 downloads since 12 months

Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Neurology
DDC:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:February 2010
Deposited On:15 Jul 2010 15:18
Last Modified:28 Nov 2013 01:25
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0167-594X
Additional Information:The final publication is available at www.springerlink.com
Publisher DOI:10.1007/s11060-009-9976-3
PubMed ID:19688297

Users (please log in): suggest update or correction for this item

Repository Staff Only: item control page