A phase II study of temozolomide vs. procarbazine in patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse.

A randomized, multicentre, open-label, phase II study compared temozolomide (TMZ), an oral second-generation alkylating agent, and procarbazine (PCB) in 225 patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse. Primary objectives were to determine progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months and safety for TMZ and PCB in adult patients who failed conventional treatment. Secondary objectives were to assess overall survival and health-related quality of life (HRQL). TMZ was given orally at 200 mg/m(2)/day or 150 mg/m(2)/day (prior chemotherapy) for 5 days, repeated every 28 days. PCB was given orally at 150 mg/m(2)/day or 125 mg/m(2)/day (prior chemotherapy) for 28 days, repeated every 56 days. HRQL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30 [+3]) and the Brain Cancer Module 20 (BCM20). The 6-month PFS rate for patients who received TMZ was 21%, which met the protocol objective. The 6-month PFS rate for those who received PCB was 8% (P = 0.008, for the comparison). Overall PFS significantly improved with TMZ, with a median PFS of 12.4 weeks in the TMZ group and 8.32 weeks in the PCB group (P = 0.0063). The 6-month overall survival rate for TMZ patients was 60% vs. 44% for PCB patients (P = 0.019). Freedom from disease progression was associated with maintenance of HRQL, regardless of treatment received. TMZ had an acceptable safety profile; most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity

Integrated-boost IMRT or 3-D-CRT using FET-PET based auto-contoured target volume delineation for glioblastoma multiforme - a dosimetric comparison

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Biological brain tumor imaging using O-(2-[¹⁸F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET)-PET combined with inverse treatment planning for locally restricted dose escalation in patients with glioblastoma multiforme seems to be a promising approach.</p> <p>The aim of this study was to compare inverse with forward treatment planning for an integrated boost dose application in patients suffering from a glioblastoma multiforme, while biological target volumes are based on FET-PET and MRI data sets.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 16 glioblastoma patients an intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique comprising an integrated boost (IB-IMRT) and a 3-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) technique were generated for dosimetric comparison. FET-PET, MRI and treatment planning CT (P-CT) were co-registrated. The integrated boost volume (PTV1) was auto-contoured using a cut-off tumor-to-brain ratio (TBR) of ≥ 1.6 from FET-PET. PTV2 delineation was MRI-based. The total dose was prescribed to 72 and 60 Gy for PTV1 and PTV2, using daily fractions of 2.4 and 2 Gy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After auto-contouring of PTV1 a marked target shape complexity had an impact on the dosimetric outcome. Patients with 3-4 PTV1 subvolumes vs. a single volume revealed a significant decrease in mean dose (67.7 vs. 70.6 Gy). From convex to complex shaped PTV1 mean doses decreased from 71.3 Gy to 67.7 Gy. The homogeneity and conformity for PTV1 and PTV2 was significantly improved with IB-IMRT. With the use of IB-IMRT the minimum dose within PTV1 (61.1 vs. 57.4 Gy) and PTV2 (51.4 vs. 40.9 Gy) increased significantly, and the mean EUD for PTV2 was improved (59.9 vs. 55.3 Gy, p < 0.01). The EUD for PTV1 was only slightly improved (68.3 vs. 67.3 Gy). The EUD for the brain was equal with both planning techniques.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In the presented planning study the integrated boost concept based on inversely planned IB-IMRT is feasible. The FET-PET-based automatically contoured PTV1 can lead to very complex geometric configurations, limiting the achievable mean dose in the boost volume. With IB-IMRT a better homogeneity and conformity, compared to 3D-CRT, could be achieved.</p

Radiotherapeutic alternatives for previously irradiated recurrent gliomas

Re-irradiation for recurrent gliomas has been discussed controversially in the past. This was mainly due to only marginal palliation while being associated with a high risk for side effects using conventional radiotherapy

Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (<it>i.e.</it>, CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>CCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.</p