Skip to main content
Current Oncology logoLink to Current Oncology
. 2007 Jun;14(3):110–117. doi: 10.3747/co.2007.119

Canadian recommendations for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme

WP Mason , R Del Maestro, D Eisenstat, P Forsyth, D Fulton, N Laperrière, D Macdonald, J Perry, B Thiessen; for the Canadian GBM Recommendations Committee*
PMCID: PMC1899357  PMID: 17593983

Abstract

Recommendation 1

Management of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (gbm) should be highly individualized and should take a multidisciplinary approach involving neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, radiation oncology, and pathology, to optimize treatment outcomes. Patients and caregivers should be kept informed of the progress of treatment at every stage.

Recommendation 2

Sufficient tissue should be obtained during surgery for cytogenetic analysis and, whenever feasible, for tumour banking.

Recommendation 3

Surgery is an integral part of the treatment plan, to establish a histopathologic diagnosis and to achieve safe, maximal, and feasible tumour resection, which may improve clinical signs and symptoms.

Recommendation 4

The preoperative imaging modality of choice is magnetic resonance imaging (mri) with gadolinium as the contrast agent. Other imaging modalities, such as positron emission tomography with [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-d-glucose, may also be considered in selected cases. Postoperative imaging (mri or computed tomography) is recommended within 72 hours of surgery to evaluate the extent of resection.

Recommendation 5

Postoperative external-beam radiotherapy is recommended as standard therapy for patients with gbm. The recommended dose is 60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. The recommended clinical target volume should be identified with gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted mri, with a margin in the order of 2–3 cm. Target volumes should be determined based on a postsurgical planning mri. A shorter course of radiation may be considered for older patients with poor performance status.

Recommendation 6

During rt, temozolomide 75 mg/m2 should be administered concurrently for the full duration of radio-therapy, typically 42 days. Temozolomide should be given approximately 1 hour before radiation therapy, and at the same time on the days that no radiotherapy is scheduled.

Recommendation 7

Adjuvant temozolomide 150 mg/m2, in a 5/28-day schedule, is recommended for cycle 1, followed by 5 cycles if well tolerated. Additional cycles may be considered in partial responders. The dose should be increased to 200 mg/m2 at cycle 2 if well tolerated. Weekly monitoring of blood count is advised during chemoradiation therapy in patients with a low white blood cell count. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia has been reported, and prophylaxis should be considered.

Recommendation 8

For patients with stable clinical symptoms during combined radiotherapy and temozolomide, completion of 3 cycles of adjuvant therapy is generally advised before a decision is made about whether to continue treatment, because pseudo-progression is a common phenomenon during this time. The recommended duration of therapy is 6 months. A longer duration may be considered in patients who show continuous improvement on therapy.

Recommendation 9

Selected patients with recurrent gbm may be candidates for repeat resection when the situation appears favourable based on an assessment of individual patient factors such as medical history, functional status, and location of the tumour. Entry into a clinical trial is recommended for patients with recurrent disease.

Recommendation 10

The optimal chemotherapeutic strategy for patients who progress following concurrent chemoradiation has not been determined. Therapeutic and clinical–molecular studies with quality of life outcomes are needed.

Keywords: Brain tumour, glioblastoma, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, temozolomide

1. INTRODUCTION

Glioblastoma multiforme (gbm) is a World Health Organization grade iv astrocytoma and the most common and aggressive primary brain tumour 1. In North America, the estimated age-adjusted incidence of gbm is 3.0 per 100,000 population 1. It occurs more commonly in males (male:female ratio of approximately 3:2) and is typically diagnosed in patients in their sixth or seventh decade.

The preoperative imaging modality of choice is gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (mri). Although contrast-enhanced mri may indicate a discrete border, gbm tumours are characterized by extensive microvascular infiltration and rapid proliferation. Based on distinct pathogenetic features, at least two subtypes of gbm can be defined. Primary (de novo) glioblastoma is more common in older patients (mean age: 55 years) 2 and typically harbours overexpression or mutation of epidermal growth factor receptor, genetic losses on chromosome 10, p16 or p19 alterations, or loss of the tumour suppressor protein phosphatase and tensin homologue 36. Secondary glioblastoma develops more slowly from a lower-grade tumour and typically occurs in younger patients (≤45 years). Genetic alterations may include TP53 mutation or overexpression of platelet-derived growth factor receptor α 7.

Although imaging techniques and multimodal treatment strategies have improved since the mid-1980s, little impact has been made on the ultimate prognosis of gbm. A population-based cohort study of all Ontario Cancer Registry cases of gbm identified between 1982 and 1994 found that the median survival of patients receiving radiotherapy (rt) and surgery was 11 months; median survival with surgery alone was 3 months 8. An analysis of the Alberta Cancer Registry database of gbm patients diagnosed between 1975 and 1991 reported that only 1.8% survived at least 3 years 9. A decade later, an analysis by the Glioma Outcomes Project of cases diagnosed between 1997 and 2001 reported a median survival of 40.9 weeks for newly-diagnosed patients with gbm 10. An analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database found no significant improvement in the gbm survival rate after the 1980s 1.

The principal reasons for poor outcome in gbm are the high rates of recurrence and of resistance to chemotherapy. Choucair et al. estimated that more than 90% of gliomas recur, typically at the site of the original tumour 11. Numerous chemotherapy regimens, administered either before rt or adjuvantly, have been investigated, but they have had little impact on patient outcomes 1216. Prognosis is affected by the histologic features of the tumour, patient age, and performance status 17,18.

Standard treatment for gbm was significantly altered following the results of a large phase iii trial conducted by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (eortc) and the National Cancer Institute of Canada 19. The eortc ncic ce3 trial randomized 573 newly-diagnosed glioblastoma patients to rt alone (2 Gy, 5/7-day schedule for 6 weeks, 60 Gy total), or to rt in combination with the oral alkylating agent temozolomide. The temozolomide dose was 75 mg/m2 daily during rt, followed by adjuvant temozolomide 150–200 mg/m2 daily in a 5/28-day schedule for 6 cycles. With the rt–temozolomide combination, 2-year survival was 26.5% as compared with 10.4% with rt alone. Median survival was 12.1 months and 14.6 months respectively. As a result, concurrent rt and temozolomide, followed by 6 monthly cycles of adjuvant temozolomide, became the new standard of care for patients newly diagnosed with gbm.

However, numerous questions remain about how to identify patients who will be more likely to respond to treatment and how to optimize a multimodal approach to patient management. The recommendations that follow were developed by a multidisciplinary panel of Canadian neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, and radiation oncologists—based on level 1 evidence where possible—as a guide to optimizing the management of patients with gbm.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 General Principles

Recommendation 1

Management of patients with gbm should be highly individualized and should take a multidisciplinary approach involving neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, radiation oncology, and pathology, to optimize treatment outcomes. The care path of gbm is complex and requires the cooperation and integration of services from multiple health care specialties and institutions so as to avoid unacceptable wait times.

All surgeries should be presented at a weekly brain tumour conference, with the neurosurgeon, radiation oncologist, and neuro-oncologist present. Ideally, for each case, the multidisciplinary team should review the patient’s clinical status, neuroimaging, and histopathologic findings to determine the optimal treatment approach.

It is recommended that the neurosurgeon inform the patient of the diagnosis. Patients and caregivers should be kept informed of the progress of treatment at every stage. Patients should receive a brain tumour information package to help them understand gbm and the treatment options, and to better inform their decision-making. Patient consent should be obtained for tumour banking.

2.2 Pathology

Specific, unique genetic changes are common in astrocytic tumours. An estimated one half of grades iiiii infiltrating astrocytomas have detectable mutations in the TP53 tumour suppressor gene 20. Loss of heterozygosity on chromosomes 1p and 19q is usually associated with oligodendroglioma, but sometimes occurs in oligoastrocytomas. Loss of heterozygosity is associated with increased sensitivity to pro-carbazine–lomustine–vincristine chemotherapy 21. In that regard, two eortc phase ii trials reported that first-or second-line temozolomide produced a high response rate in patients with recurrent or progressive oligoastrocytoma or oligodendroglioma 22,23; response was associated with 1p and 19q loss 24. Glioblastoma multiforme is more chemoresistant, and genetic markers do not appear to have comparable prognostic significance 25. Of particular importance, however, is O6-methylguanine dna methyltransferase (mgmt), a repair protein that removes methyl adducts and transfers them to an internal cysteine residue 26. Because the O6 position is one of the targets of alkylating chemotherapeutic agents, mgmt activity enhances tumour resistance by repairing cytoxic damage. Conversely, tumour sensitivity is enhanced if mgmt is silenced through hypermethylation of the CpG islands in the promoter region 2729.

A number of studies have indicated that mgmt promoter methylation is predictive of a good response to alkylating agents such as 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea (bcnu) and cyclophosphamide 30,31. Following the phase iii study of combined rt and temozolomide 19, Hegi et al. analyzed the mgmt promoter methylation status of 206 evaluable patients 32. In 92 tumours (44.7%), mgmt promoter methylation was detectable. Median survival was 18.2 months in patients with promoter methylation as compared with 12.2 months in those without methylation, and median survival was 21.7 months in rt–temozolomide-treated patients with promoter methylation. In the subgroup of patients with promoter methylation, 2-year survival was 46% in the rt–temozolomide group as compared with 22.7% in patients treated with rt alone (Table I). In the subgroup of patients without promoter methylation, median survival was only marginally superior with combined rt–temozol-omide than with rt alone (12.7 months vs. 11.8 months); 2-year survival was 13.8% as compared with <2% respectively.

TABLE I.

Effect of methylation status of methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (mgmt) promoter on progression-free survival (pfs) and overall survival (os) in patients receiving radiotherapy plus temozolomide (tmz) versus radiotherapy (RT) alonea

Clinical endpoint TMZ + RT (n=106) RT (n=100)
Methylated MGMT (n) 46 46
 6-Month PFS 47.8 68.9
 2-Year OS 22.7 46.0
Unmethylated MGMT (n) 54 60
 6-Month PFS 35.2 40.0
 2-Year OS <2 13.8
a

Adapted from reference 32.

Temozolomide is a recommended treatment for newly-diagnosed gbm and for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Although mgmt methylation status appears to be a prognostic factor for increased survival and possibly for better response to temozolomide, a prospective study is required before promoter hyper-methylation can be used as a guide to treatment decisions in gbm.

Recommendation 2

The molecular genetic determination of brain tumours is becoming increasingly important, enabling more accurate diagnosis and prognosis. Sufficient tissue should be obtained during surgery for cytogenetic analysis and, whenever feasible, for tumour banking. The preliminary pathology report should be available within 48 hours post surgery; the final report should be completed within 8 working days post surgery.

2.3 Surgery

Recommendation 3

Surgery is an integral part of the treatment plan, to establish a histopathologic diagnosis and to achieve safe maximal tumour resection, which may improve clinical signs and symptoms.

A gross total resection, if achievable, is advised in any patients with a primary or recurrent malignant glial tumour if the surgery can be performed without significant risk to the patient. Simpson et al. analysed data from 645 gbm patients in three prospective Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials 33. Surgery consisted of total resection (19%), partial resection (64%), or biopsy only (17%). Median survival was 11.3 months for total resection, 10.4 months for partial resection, and 6.6 months for biopsy.

Recommendation 4

The preoperative imaging modality of choice is mri with gadolinium as the contrast agent. Other imaging modalities, such as positron emission tomography with [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-d-glucose, may also be considered in selected cases 34. Postoperative imaging (mri or computed tomography) is recommended within 72 hours of surgery to evaluate the extent of resection.

2.4 Radiotherapy

The use of adjuvant external-beam rt is well established in the postoperative treatment of gbm. A pooled analysis of six randomized trials by Cancer Care Ontario reported a significant survival benefit favouring postoperative rt as compared with no rt (risk ratio: 0.81) 35,36. Overall, median survival is approximately 36–48 weeks with adjuvant rt as compared with 14–22 weeks with surgery alone 3739.

External-beam rt is generally administered over 5–6 weeks, delivering a total dose of 50–60 Gy in 1.8- to 2.0-Gy fractions 40. Doses above 60 Gy and boost rt do not appear to influence survival 40,41.

Alternative forms of fractionation have been investigated. Accelerated fractionation delivers standard fraction sizes more frequently (for example, 2 or 3 times daily) to reduce the overall treatment time. Several studies have reported no increased survival, although no increased toxicity was found 4244. This approach may be an option for selected patients (such as the elderly), but additional study is needed.

Hyperfractionation, which delivers a higher total radiation dose in a larger number of smaller fractions, showed no improvement in time to tumour progression or survival 45,46.

Radiotherapy should be initiated within 4 weeks of surgery.

Recommendation 5

Postoperative external-beam rt is recommended as standard therapy for patients with gbm. The recommended dose is 60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions 35,36. The recommended clinical target volume should be identified with gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted mri, with a margin in the order of 2–3 cm, given that most recurrences will occur within a few centimetres of the tumour mass 47,48. Target volumes should be determined based on a postsurgi-cal planning mri. A shorter course of radiation may be considered for older patients with poor performance status 49,50.

2.5 Chemotherapy

Glioblastoma multiforme has been viewed as a chemoresistant tumour, and the nitrosoureas, the traditional mainstays of treatment, have had modest efficacy, but are associated with significant toxicity 39. Most studies were reported decades ago, but a recent phase ii trial evaluated bcnu 80 mg/m2 on days 1–3 every 8 weeks (maximum 6 cycles) in 40 patients with recurrent gbm who had undergone surgery and RT51. The median time to progression was 13 weeks; the 6-month progression-free survival (pfs) was 17.5%. Significant side effects included reversible hematologic toxicities and chronic hepatic and pulmonary toxicity.

Recommendation 6

During rt, temozolomide 75 mg/m2 should be administered concurrently for 42 days 35. Temozolomide should be given approximately 1 hour before rt, and at the same time on the days when no rt is scheduled (weekends).

Whether the clinical benefit of this combination is attributable in part to the radiosensitizing effects of temozolomide is unclear. To date, four in vitro studies have suggested a radiosensitizing effect with tem-ozolomide for some cancer cell lines 5255, but additional research is needed.

Recommendation 7

Adjuvant temozolomide 150 mg/m2, in 5/28-day schedule, is recommended for cycle 1, followed by 5 cycles if well tolerated. Additional cycles may be considered in partial responders or in those with continuing radiologic improvement. The dose should be increased to 200 mg/m2 at cycle 2 if well tolerated. Weekly monitoring of blood count is advised during chemoradiation therapy in patients with a low white blood cell count. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia has been reported, and prophylaxis should be considered 56.

Recommendation 8

For patients with stable clinical symptoms during rt–temozolomide, completion of 3 cycles of adjuvant therapy is generally advised before a decision is made about whether to continue treatment. In the first few weeks or months following completion of rt, mri is not reliable to assess true progression. Evidence of progression outside the rt field is indicative of true progression. A longer duration may be considered in patients who show continuous improvement on therapy.

2.6 Recurrent GBM

Recommendation 9

Selected patients with recurrent gbm may be candidates for repeat resection when the situation appears favourable based on an assessment of individual patient factors such as medical history, functional status, and location of the tumour 57,58. Entry into a clinical trial is recommended for patients with recurrent disease.

Recommendation 10

The optimal chemotherapeutic strategy for patients who progress following concurrent chemoradiation has not been determined. Therapeutic and clinical-molecular studies with quality of life outcomes are needed 35.

For patients not receiving chemotherapy at the time of progression, re-challenge with temozolomide to deplete mgmt might be attempted, but clinical data on this strategy are lacking.

Some preliminary data suggest that novel dose-intense schedules may provide some benefit. Khan et al. reported a 6-month pfs of 19% with temozolomide 75 mg/m2 in a 42/70-day schedule 59. In a small phase ii study by Wick et al., the 6-month pfs was 48% with temozolomide 150 mg/m2 administered in a 7-day on / 7-day off schedule 60. Although the findings are promising, additional phase ii studies are required before the foregoing dosing regimens can be recommended.

A number of chemotherapeutic agents, including nitrosoureas, carboplatin, etoposide, irinotecan, and imatinib 6164, have been used as salvage therapy either alone or in combination. Additional trials with a variety of agents are underway, but preliminary results from single-agent studies have been disappointing. Table II summarizes phase ii studies in gbm.

TABLE II.

Phase ii studies in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

Reference Regimen Patients (n) 6-Monthpfs(%)
Yung et al.65 tmz 150–200 mg/m2 daily, 5/28-day schedule
vs. pcb 125–150 mg/m2, 28/56-day schedule
225 21
8
Groves et al.66 tmz 150–200 mg/m2, 5/28-day schedule + marimastat 50 mg, days 8–28 × 2 cycles 44 39
Jaeckle et al.67 tmz 150–200 mg/m2, 5/28-day schedule + cis-retinoic acid 100 mg/m2, 21/28-day schedule 40 32
Brandes et al.68 tmz 130 mg/m2 bolus, tmz 70 mg/m2 every 12 hours × 5 days + cisplatin 75 mg/m2 50 34
Brandes et al.51 bcnu 80 mg/m2, days 1–3 every 8 weeks × 6 cycles maximum 40 17.5
Brandes et al.69 pcb 100 mg/m2 × 30 days + tamoxifen 100 mg daily 51 na
Kappelle et al.70 pcv 63 29
Fine et al.71 bcnu 200 mg/m2, day 1 of every 6-week cycle + thalidomide 800 mg daily (maximum 1200 mg) 38 27
Brandes et al.72 bcnu 100 mg/m2 on day 1 + irinotecan 175 mg/m2 weekly × 4 weeks in every 6 weeks (maximum 8 cycles) 42 30
Pipas et al.73 Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 day 1 + topotecan 1.0 mg/m2 days 1–5 20 naa
Rich et al.74 Gefitinib 500 mg daily; dose escalation to 750–1000 mg 53 13
See et al.75 cis-Retinoic acid 100 mg/m2 daily, 21/28-day schedule 85 19
Chang et al.76 Temsirolimus (mTor inhibitor) 250 mg weekly 43 2.3
a

Trial suspended because of significant hemotoxicity.

pfs = progression-free survival; tmz = temozolomide; pcb = procarbazine; bcnu = 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea; na = not available; pcv = procarbazine–lomustine–vincristine.

For patients who progress on temozolomide, combination therapy may be possible; several recent trials have evaluated various temozolomide combinations (Table II). For example, the efficacy of bolus temozolomide 130 mg/m2 followed by 70 mg/m2 every 12 hours for 5 days, plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2, was evaluated in 50 patients with recurrent gbm 65. Among the 49 evaluable patients, 1 patient achieved a complete response, and 9 achieved partial responses. The 6-month pfs was 34%; the 12-month pfs was 4%. Overall survival was 11.2 months. The most common grade 3–4 toxicity was granulocytopenia, which occurred in 8% of cycles.

3. CONCLUSIONS

Surgery followed by rt still represents the primary approach to the treatment of gbm. The addition of temozolomide chemotherapy to the standard of care has significantly increased the proportion of patients who survive more than 2 years. However, additional progress still needs to be made, because almost one half of gbm patients will not survive the first year after surgery. Additional research is needed to build on recent clinical gains and to focus on new drug combinations or therapies that could potentially further improve outcomes in patients with gbm.

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Funding for the Canadian GBM Recommendations Committee meeting was provided by Schering Canada Inc.

5. REFERENCES

  • 1.Deorah S, Lynch CF, Sibenaller ZA, Ryken TCR. Trends in brain cancer incidence and survival in the United States: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, 1973 to 2001. Neurosurg Focus. 2006;20:1–7. doi: 10.3171/foc.2006.20.4.E1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.DeAngelis LM. Brain tumours. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:114–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200101113440207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Watanabe K, Tachibana O, Sata K, Yonekawa Y, Kleihues P, Ohgaki H. Overexpression of the egf receptor and p53 mutations are mutually exclusive in the evolution of primary and secondary glioblastomas. Brain Pathol. 1996;6:217–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.1996.tb00848.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Biernat W, Tohma Y, Yonekawa Y, Kleihues P, Ohgaki H. Alterations of cell cycle regulatory genes in primary (de novo) and secondary glioblastomas. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1997;94:303–9. doi: 10.1007/s004010050711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Roversi G, Pfundt R, Moroni RF, et al. Identification of novel genomic markers related to progression to glioblastoma through genomic profiling of 25 primary glioma cell lines. Oncogene. 2006;25:1571–83. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1209177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hill C, Hunter SB, Brat DJ. Genetic markers in glioblastoma: prognostic significance and future therapeutic implications. Adv Anat Pathol. 2003;10:212–17. doi: 10.1097/00125480-200307000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hermanson M, Funa K, Koopmann J, et al. Association of loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 17p with high platelet-derived growth factor alpha receptor expression in human malignant gliomas. Cancer Res. 1996;56:164–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Paszat L, Laperriere N, Groome P, Schulze K, Mackillop W, Holowaty E. A population-based study of glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:100–7. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01572-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Scott JN, Rewcastle NB, Brasher PM, et al. Long-term glioblastoma multiforme survivors: a population-based study. Can J Neurol Sci. 1998;25:197–201. doi: 10.1017/s0317167100034016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Laws ER, Parney IF, Huang W, et al. Survival following surgery and prognostic factors for recently diagnosed malignant glioma: data from the Glioma Outcomes Project. J Neurosurg. 2003;99:467–73. doi: 10.3171/jns.2003.99.3.0467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Choucair AK, Levin VA, Gutin PH, et al. Development of multiple lesions during radiation therapy and chemotherapy in patients with gliomas. J Neurosurg. 1986;65:654–8. doi: 10.3171/jns.1986.65.5.0654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Green SB, Byar DP, Walker MD, et al. Comparisons of carmustine, procarbazine, and high-dose methylprednisolone as additions to surgery and radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant glioma. Cancer Treat Rep. 1983;67:121–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chang CH, Horton J, Schoenfeld D, et al. Comparison of postoperative radiotherapy and combined postoperative radio-therapy and chemotherapy in the multidisciplinary management of malignant gliomas: a joint Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. Cancer. 1983;52:997–1007. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19830915)52:6<997::aid-cncr2820520612>3.0.co;2-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shapiro WR, Green SB, Burger PC, et al. Randomized trial of three chemotherapy regimens and two radiotherapy regimens and two radiotherapy regimens in postoperative treatment of malignant glioma: Brain Tumor Cooperative Group trial 8001. J Neurosurg. 1989;71:1–9. doi: 10.3171/jns.1989.71.1.0001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grossman SA, O’Neill A, Grunnet M, et al. Phase iii study comparing three cycles of infusional carmustine and cisplatin followed by radiation therapy with radiation therapy and concurrent carmustine in patients with newly diagnosed suprat-entorial glioblastoma multiforme: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial 2394. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1485–91. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.10.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Deutsch M, Green SB, Strike TA, et al. Results of a randomized trial comparing bcnu plus radiotherapy, streptozotocin plus radiotherapy, bcnu plus hyperfractionated radiotherapy, and bcnu following misonidazole plus radiotherapy in the postoperative treatment of malignant glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;16:1389–96. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(89)90939-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Scott JN, Rewcastle NB, Brasher PMA, et al. Which glioblastoma multiforme patient will become a long-term survivor? A population-based study. Ann Neurol. 1999;46:183–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Perry A, Jenkins RB, O’Fallon JR, et al. Clinicopathologic study of 85 similarly treated patients with anaplastic astrocytic tumors: an analysis of DNA content (ploidy), cellular proliferation, and p53 expression. Cancer. 1999;86:672–83. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990815)86:4<672::aid-cncr17>3.0.co;2-g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:987–96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Maintz D, Fiedler K, Koopmann J, et al. Molecular genetic evidence for subtypes of oligoastrocytomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1997;56:1098–104. doi: 10.1097/00005072-199710000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eoli M, Bissola L, Bruzzone MG, et al. Reclassification of oligoastrocytomas by loss of heterozygosity studies. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:84–90. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.van den Bent MJ, Taphoorn MJ, Brandes AA, et al. Phase II study of first-line chemotherapy with temozolomide in recurrent oligodendroglioma: the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumour Group study 26971. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2525–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.van den Bent MJ, Chinot O, Boogerd W, et al. Second-line chemotherapy with temozolomide in recurrent oligodendroglioma after pcv (procarbazine, lomustine and vincristine) chemotherapy: eortc Brain Tumour Group study 26972. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:599–602. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdg157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Triebels VH, Taphoorn MJ, Brandes AA, et al. Salvage pcv chemotherapy for temozolomide-resistant oligodendrogliomas. Neurology. 2004;63:904–6. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000137049.65631.db. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Houillier C, Lejeune J, Benouaich–Amiel A, et al. Prognostic impact of molecular markers in a series of 220 primary glioblastomas. Cancer. 2006;106:2218–23. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pegg AE, Dolan ME, Moschel RC. Structure, function, and inhibition of O6-alkylguanine-dna alkyltransferase. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol. 1995;51:167–223. doi: 10.1016/s0079-6603(08)60879-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Costello JF, Futscher BW, Kroes RA, Pieper RO. Methylation-related chromatin structure is associated with exclusion of transcription factors from and suppressed expression of the O-6-methylguanine dna methyltransferase gene in human glioma cell lines. Mol Cell Biol. 1994;14:6515–21. doi: 10.1128/mcb.14.10.6515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Watts GS, Pieper RO, Costello JF, et al. Methylation of discrete regions of the O6-methylguanine dna methyltransferase (mgmt) CpG island is associated with heterochromatinization of the mgmt transcription start site and silencing of the gene. Mol Cell Biol. 1997;17:5612–19. doi: 10.1128/mcb.17.9.5612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Danam RP, Qian XC, Howell SR, Brent TP. Methylation of selected CpGs in the human O6-methylguanine-dna methyltransferase promoter region as a marker of gene silencing. Mol Carcinog. 1999;24:85–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Esteller M, Garcia–Foncillas J, Andion E, et al. Inactivation of the dna-repair gene mgmt and the clinical response of gliomas to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1350–4. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011093431901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Esteller M, Gaidano G, Goodman SN, et al. Hypermethylation of the dna repair gene O(6)-methylguanine dna methyl-transferase and survival of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:26–32. doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.1.26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. mgmt gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:997–1003. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Simpson JR, Horton J, Scott C, et al. Influence of location and extent of surgical resection on survival of patients with glioblastoma multiforme: results of three consecutive Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (rtog) clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:239–44. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(93)90203-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.De Witte O, Levivier M, Violon P, et al. Prognostic value positron emission tomography with [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose in the low-grade glioma. Neurosurgery. 1996;39:476–477. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199609000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Perry J, Zuraw L, for the Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group. Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, following surgery and external beam radiotherapy, for adults with newly diagnosed malignant glioma: a clinical practice guideline. Evidence-based series 9-2. Section 1. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario; March 2004, updated May 2006. [Available online at: www.cancercare.on.ca/index_neurooncologyGuidelines.htm; cited October 23, 2006]
  • 36.Laperriere N, Zuraw L, Cairncross G Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group. . Radiotherapy for newly diagnosed malignant glioma in adults: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol. 2002;64:259–73. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(02)00078-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kristiansen K, Hagen S, Kollevold T, et al. Combined modality therapy of operated astrocytomas grade iii and iv. Confirmation of the value of post-operative irradiation and lack of potentiation of bleomycin on survival time: a prospective multicenter trial of the Scandinavian Glioblastoma Study Group. Cancer. 1981;47:649–52. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19810215)47:4<649::aid-cncr2820470405>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kelly KA, Kirkwood JM, Kapp DS. Glioblastoma multiforme: pathology, natural history and treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. 1984;11:1–26. doi: 10.1016/0305-7372(84)90014-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Walker MD, Alexander E, Jr, Hunt WE, et al. Evaluation of bcnu and/or radiotherapy in the treatment of anaplastic gliomas: a cooperative clinical trial. J Neurosurg. 1978;49:333–43. doi: 10.3171/jns.1978.49.3.0333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Laperriere NJ, Bernstein M. Radiotherapy for brain tumors. CA Cancer J Clin. 1994;44:96–108. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.44.2.96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Souhami L, Seiferheld W, Brachman D, et al. Randomized comparison of stereotactic radiosurgery followed by conventional radiotherapy with carmustine to conventional radio-therapy with carmustine for patients with glioblastoma multiforme: report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 93-05 protocol. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:853–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Simpson WJ, Platts ME. Fractionation study in the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1976;1:639–44. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(76)90145-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Keim H, Potthoff PC, Schmidt K, Schiebusch M, Neiss A, Trott KR. Survival and quality of life after continuous accelerated radiotherapy of glioblastoma. Radiother Oncol. 1987;9:21–6. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(87)80215-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Horiot JC, van den Bogaert W, Ang KK, et al. European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer trials using radiotherapy with multiple fractions per day. Front Radiat Ther Oncol. 1988;22:149–61. doi: 10.1159/000415105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fulton DS, Urtasun RC, Scott–Brown I, et al. Increasing radiation dose intensity using hyperfractionation in patients with malignant glioma. Final report of a prospective phase i- ii dose response study. J Neurooncol. 1992;14:63–72. doi: 10.1007/BF00170946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Deutsch M, Green SB, Strike TA, et al. Results of a randomized trial comparing bcnu plus radiotherapy, streptozotocin plus radiotherapy, bcnu plus hyperfractionated radiotherapy, and bcnu following misonidazole plus radiotherapy in the postoperative treatment of malignant glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;16:1389–96. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(89)90939-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gaspar LE, Fisher BJ, Macdonald DR, et al. Supratentorial malignant glioma: patterns of recurrence and implications for external beam local treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;24:55–7. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(92)91021-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lee SW, Fraass BA, Marsh LH, et al. Patterns of failure following high-dose 3-D conformal radiotherapy for high-grade astrocytomas: a quantitative dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:79–88. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(98)00266-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Keime–Guibert F, Chinot O, Taillandier F, et al. Phase 3 study comparing radiotherapy with supportive care in older patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytomas (aa) or glioblastoma multiforme (gbm): an anocef group trial (abstract) Neuro-oncol. 2005;7:349. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Roa W, Brasher PM, Bauman G, et al. Abbreviated course of radiation therapy in older patients with glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1583–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Amista P, et al. How effective is bcnu in recurrent glioblastoma in the modern era? A phase ii trial. Neurology. 2004;63:1281–4. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000140495.33615.ca. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wedge SR, Porteous JK, Glaser MG, et al. In vitro evaluation of temozolomide combined with X-irradiation. Anticancer Drugs. 1997;8:92–7. doi: 10.1097/00001813-199701000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.van Rijn J, Heimans JJ, van den Berg J, et al. Survival of human glioma cells treated with various combination of temozolomide and X-rays. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:779–84. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(99)00539-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Trog D, Moenkemann H, Haertel N, et al. Expression of ABC-1 transporter is elevated in human glioma cells under irradiation and temozolomide treatment. Amino Acids. 2005;28:213–19. doi: 10.1007/s00726-005-0171-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wick W, Wick A, Schulz JB, et al. Prevention of irradiation-induced glioma cell invasion by temozolomide involves caspase 3 activity and cleavage of focal adhesion kinase. Cancer Res. 2002;62:1915–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ammirati M, Galicich JH, Arbit E, Liao Y. Reoperation in the treatment of recurrent intracranial malignant gliomas. Neuro-surgery. 1987;21:607–14. doi: 10.1227/00006123-198711000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Su YB, Sohn S, Krown SE, et al. Selective cd4+ lymphopenia in melanoma patients treated with temozolomide: a toxicity with therapeutic implications. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:610–16. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Barker FG, 2nd, Chang SM, Gutin PH, et al. Survival and functional status after resection of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Neurosurgery. 1998;42:709–20. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199804000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Khan RB, Raizer JJ, Malkin MG, Bazylewicz KA, Abrey LE. A phase ii study of extended low-dose temozolomide in recurrent malignant gliomas. Neuro-oncol. 2002;4:39–43. doi: 10.1215/15228517-4-1-39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wick W, Steinbach JP, Kuker WM, Dichgans J, Bamberg M, Weller M. One week on/one week off: a novel active regimen of temozolomide for recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology. 2004;62:2113–15. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000127617.89363.84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Basso U, et al. Second-line chemotherapy with irinotecan plus carmustine in glioblastoma recurrent or progressive after first-line temozolomide chemotherapy: a phase ii study of the Gruppo Italiano Cooperativo di Neuro-Oncologia (gicno) J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4779–86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Franceschi E, Cavallo G, Scopece L, et al. Phase ii trial of carboplatin and etoposide for patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1038–44. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Reardon DA, Quinn JA, Vredenburgh J, et al. Phase ii trial of irinotecan plus celecoxib in adults with recurrent malignant glioma. Cancer. 2005;103:329–38. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Reardon DA, Egorin MJ, Quinn JA, et al. Phase ii study of imatinib mesylate plus hydroxyurea in adults with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9359–68. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.2185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Yung WK, Albright RE, Olson J, et al. A phase ii study of temozolomide vs. procarbazine in patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse. Br J Cancer. 2000;83:588–93. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Groves MD, Puduvalli VK, Hess KR, et al. Phase ii trial of temozolomide plus the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, marimastat, in recurrent and progressive glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1383–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.5.1383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Jaeckle KA, Hess KR, Yung WK, et al. Phase ii evaluation of temozolomide and 13-cis-retinoic acid for the treatment of recurrent and progressive malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2305–11. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Brandes AA, Basso U, Reni M, et al. First-line chemotherapy with cisplatin plus fractionated temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: a phase ii study of the Gruppo Italiano Cooperativo di Neuro-Oncologia. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1598–604. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.11.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Brandes AA, Ermani M, Turazzi S, et al. Procarbazine and high-dose tamoxifen as a second-line regimen in recurrent high-grade gliomas: a phase ii study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:645–50. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.2.645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kappelle AC, Postma TJ, Taphoorn MJ, et al. pcv chemotherapy for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Neurology. 2001;56:1782. doi: 10.1212/wnl.56.1.118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Fine HA, Wen PY, Maher EA, et al. Phase ii trial of thalidomide and carmustine for patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2299–304. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.08.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Basso U, et al. Second-line chemotherapy with irinotecan plus carmustine in glioblastoma recurrent or progressive after first-line temozolomide chemotherapy: a phase ii study of the Gruppo Italiano Cooperativo di Neuro-Oncologia (gicno) J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4779–86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Pipas JM, Meyer LP, Rhodes CH, et al. A phase ii trial of paclitaxel and topotecan with filgrastim in patients with recurrent or refractory glioblastoma multiforme or anaplastic astrocytoma. J Neurooncol. 2005;71:301–5. doi: 10.1007/s11060-004-2026-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Rich JN, Reardon DA, Peery T, et al. Phase ii trial of gefitinib in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:133–42. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.See SJ, Levin VA, Yung WK, Hess KR, Groves MD. 13-cis-Retinoic acid in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro-oncol. 2004;6:253–8. doi: 10.1215/S1152851703000607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Chang SM, Wen P, Cloughesy T, et al. Phase ii study of cci-779 in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Invest New Drugs. 2005;23:357–61. doi: 10.1007/s10637-005-1444-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Current Oncology are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES