ASCO 2010:
Two similarly sized and designed trials are reported which randomized patients >65 in the NOA-08 and >60 Malmstrom abstract to temozolomide vs RT alone and came to different conclusions. In the NOA-08 trial TMZ alone was not non-inferior (i.e. it was worse) than RT - which is the current standard. In the Malmstrom abstract they looked at conventional RT(60Gy in 2Gy/day) vs a hypofractionated regimen vs TMZ, and found no difference (even the trend was against RT). The TMZ was also different between the trials (1week on and off in the NOA trial vs d1-5 Q28 in the Malmstrom abstract). Regardless of which treatment paradigm was pursued, the outcome comparisons are poor no matter what, and better treatment stratagies should be explored.
Addendum - The abstract discussion was lively, primarily focused on the Malmstrom piece. There were some concerns that this trial had a poorer prognosis group which may not have benefited by 60Gy in 2Gy/fx.
Dr. Grossman discussed the trial - and pointed out that in the Stupp EORTC trial, there is a subgroup analysis in those >60 years of age - which seem to have a benefit in the tail of the curve with combined TMZ/RT. Therefore in a good PS patient, between 60-70yrs, combined treatment is the standard in this group. He also points out that MGMT status also matters in elderly patients (Gerstner). And lastly, the control arm of the Stupp trial (RT alone) between years of 60-70 performed much better than any of the arms of these two trials, suggesting that patient selection is driving a lot of these differences.
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment