Phase I/IIa Study of Cilengitide and Temozolomide With Concomitant Radiotherapy Followed by Cilengitide and Temozolomide Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 06/2010; 28(16):2712-8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.6650
Source: PubMed


Invasion and migration are key processes of glioblastoma and are tightly linked to tumor recurrence. Integrin inhibition using cilengitide has shown synergy with chemotherapy and radiotherapy in vitro and promising activity in recurrent glioblastoma. This multicenter, phase I/IIa study investigated the efficacy and safety of cilengitide in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
Patients (age > or = 18 to < or = 70 years) were treated with cilengitide (500 mg) administered twice weekly intravenously in addition to standard radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. Treatment was continued until disease progression or for up to 35 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months.
Fifty-two patients (median age, 57 years; 62% male) were included. Six- and 12-month PFS rates were 69% (95% CI, 54% to 80%) and 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%). Median PFS was 8 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 10.7 months). Twelve- and 24-month overall survival (OS) rates were 68% (95% CI, 53% to 79%) and 35% (95% CI, 22% to 48%). Median OS was 16.1 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 23.2 months). PFS and OS were longer in patients with tumors with O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation (13.4 and 23.2 months) versus those without MGMT promoter methylation (3.4 and 13.1 months). The combination of cilengitide with temozolomide and radiotherapy was well tolerated, with no additional toxicity. No pharmacokinetic interactions between temozolomide and cilengitide were identified.
Compared with historical controls, the addition of concomitant and adjuvant cilengitide to standard chemoradiotherapy demonstrated promising activity in patients with glioblastoma with MGMT promoter methylation.

1 Follower
4 Reads
  • Source
    • "Thus, the inhibition of integrin signaling has a therapeutic potential, particularly in some complicated cases such as glioblastoma multiforme cancers. Indeed, clinical trials with the synthetic drug cilengitide, which is based on a cyclo (–RGDfV–) peptide, a specific inhibitor of av-containing integrins, have reached phase III (Desgrosellier and Cheresh, 2010; Reardon et al., 2008; Stupp et al., 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Extracellular matrix (ECM) molecules, their receptors at the cell surface, and cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) involved in cell-cell or cell-ECM interactions are implicated in processes related to major diseases of the central nervous system including Alzheimer's disease (AD), epilepsy, schizophrenia, addiction, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and cancer. There are multiple strategies for targeting the ECM molecules and their metabolizing enzymes and receptors with antibodies, peptides, glycosaminoglycans, and other natural and synthetic compounds. ECM-targeting treatments include chondroitinase ABC, heparin/heparan sulfate-mimicking oligosaccharides, ECM cross-linking antibodies, and drugs stimulating expression of ECM molecules. The amount or activity of ECM-degrading enzymes like matrix metalloproteinases can be modulated indirectly via the regulation of endogenous inhibitors like TIMPs and RECK or at the transcriptional and translational levels using, e.g., histone deacetylase inhibitors, synthetic inhibitors like Periostat, microRNA-interfering drugs like AC1MMYR2, and natural compounds like flavonoids, epigallocatechin-3-gallate, anacardic acid, and erythropoietin. Among drugs targeting the major ECM receptors, integrins, are the anticancer peptide cilengitide and anti-integrin antibodies, which have a potential for treatment of stroke, multiple sclerosis, and AD. The latter can be also potentially treated with modulators of CAMs, such as peptide mimetics derived from L1-CAM and NCAM1.
    Progress in brain research 11/2014; 214:353-88. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-444-63486-3.00015-3 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j c o n r e l tumors, and certain of them have already been used at different stages of clinical trials [11] [12] [13] [14]. This study aimed to identify breast cancer-targeting peptides for molecular imaging by phage display. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common malignant cancer and is the leading cause of cancer death among females. Molecular imaging is a promising approach for the early detection and staging of breast cancer as well as for assessing therapeutic responses. Tumor-targeting peptides are effective targeting vehicles for molecular imaging. Here, we identified a breast cancer-targeting peptide CLKADKAKC (CK3) contains a cryptic C-end rule motif that may mediate its binding to neuropilin-1 (NRP-1), an attractive therapeutic target which expression was associated with poor outcome of the patients with breast cancer. Phage CK3 bound to NRP-1-positive breast cancer cells, which could be inhibited by peptide CK3 in a dose-dependent manner or by knock-down NRP-1 expression. Consistently, NRP-1 overexpression in cells increased the binding of phage CK3. Furthermore, peptide CK3 co-localized with NRP-1. Importantly, unlike previously reported NRP-1-targeting peptides with exposed C-end rule motifs, peptide CK3 did not penetrate into lungs and heart in vivo, which could make it more clinically applicable. Single-photon emission CT (SPECT) and near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging showed enrichment of peptide CK3 to the xenograft tumors in nude mice. In conclusion, as a novel NRP-1-targeting peptide, peptide CK3 could be used for breast cancer molecular imaging, which may represent a new avenue for breast cancer diagnostics, staging and assessments of therapeutic response.
    Journal of Controlled Release 07/2014; 192. DOI:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.07.039 · 7.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "MGMT promoter methylation testing has recently been introduced as a marker for patient selection within clinical trials.113,134–137 Results from a Phase I/IIA trial for cilengitide have shown that treatment effects were better in MGMT promoter methylated patients.138 Accordingly, the ongoing Cilengitide, Temozolomide, and Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma and Methylated Gene Promoter Status (CENTRIC) study (NCT00689221) was one of the first prospective multicenter studies that evaluated alternative treatment (cilengitide, temozolomide, and radiation therapy) in MGMT methylated glioblastoma patients only. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The identification of molecular genetic biomarkers considerably increased our current understanding of glioma genesis, prognostic evaluation, and treatment planning. In glioblastoma, the most malignant intrinsic brain tumor entity in adults, the promoter methylation status of the gene encoding for the repair enzyme O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) indicates increased efficacy of current standard of care, which is concomitant and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with the alkylating agent temozolomide. In the elderly, MGMT promoter methylation status has recently been introduced to be a predictive biomarker that can be used for stratification of treatment regimes. This review gives a short summery of epidemiological, clinical, diagnostic, and treatment aspects of patients who are currently diagnosed with glioblastoma. The most important molecular genetic markers and epigenetic alterations in glioblastoma are summarized. Special focus is given to the physiological function of DNA methylation-in particular, of the MGMT gene promoter, its clinical relevance, technical aspects of status assessment, its correlation with MGMT mRNA and protein expressions, and its place within the management cascade of glioblastoma patients.
    OncoTargets and Therapy 09/2013; 6:1363-1372. DOI:10.2147/OTT.S50208 · 2.31 Impact Factor
Show more


4 Reads
Available from