RNOP-09: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicine and prolonged temozolomide in addition to radiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma - a phase II study

BACKGROUND: Although Temozolomide is effective against glioblastoma, the prognosis remains dismal and new regimens with synergistic activity are sought for. METHODS: In this phase-I/II trial, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx, PEG-Dox) and prolonged administration of Temozolomide in addition to radiotherapy was investigated in 63 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. In phase-I, PEG-Dox was administered in a 3-by-3 dose-escalation regimen. In phase-II, 20 mg/m2 PEG-Dox was given once prior to radiotherapy and on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle starting 4 weeks after radiotherapy. Temozolomide was given in a dose of 75 mg/m2 daily during radiotherapy (60 Gy) and 150-200 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of each 28-day cycle for 12 cycles or until disease progression. RESULTS: The toxicity of the combination of PEG-Dox, prolonged administration of Temozolomide, and radiotherapy was tolerable. The progression free survival after 12 months (PFS-12) was 30.2%, the median overall survival was 17.6 months in all patients including the ones from Phase-I. None of the endpoints differed significantly from the EORTC26981/NCIC-CE.3 data in a post-hoc statistical comparison. CONCLUSION: Together, the investigated combination is tolerable and feasible. Neither the addition of PEG-Dox nor the prolonged administration of Temozolomide resulted in a meaningful improvement of the patient's outcome as compared to the EORTC26981/NCIC-CE.3 data

A requiem for hybridity? The problem with Frankensteins, purées, and mules

Hybridity as an interpretive construct in the archaeology of colonialism has encountered many pitfalls, due largely to the way it has been set adrift from clear theoretical anchors and has been applied inconsistently to things, practices, processes, and even people. One of the telltale signs of its problematic nature is the ease with which archaeologists claim to identify the origin and existence of hybridity but the difficulty faced if asked when and how such hybridity actually ends, if it does. In that context, this paper offers a potential requiem for hybridity. If we need not go that far, archaeologists at least need to rein in the “Frankenstein” version of hybridity that permeates archaeology and occludes its variable and problematic origins, acknowledge the dangers of accentuating or even celebrating “purées,” and beware of the creation of cultural “mules” in analytical classifications and interpretations