Effect of imaging and catheter characteristics on clinical outcome for patients in the PRECISE study

Department of Neurology, University of San Francisco, 350 Parnassus Ave, Suite 609, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA.
Journal of Neuro-Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.07). 01/2011; 101(2):267-77. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-010-0255-0
Source: PubMed


The PRECISE study used convection enhanced delivery (CED) to infuse IL13-PE38QQR in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and compared survival to Gliadel Wafers (GW). The objectives of this retrospective evaluation were to assess: (1) catheter positioning in relation to imaging features and (2) to examine the potential impact of catheter positioning, overall catheter placement and imaging features on long term clinical outcome in the PRECISE study. Catheter positioning and overall catheter placement were scored and used as a surrogate of adequate placement. Imaging studies obtained on day 43 and day 71 after resection were each retrospectively reviewed. Catheter positioning scores, catheter overall placement scores, local tumor control and imaging change scores were reviewed and correlated using Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Cox PH regression analysis was used to examine whether these imaging based variables predicted overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) after adjusting for age and KPS. Of 180 patients in the CED group, 20 patients did not undergo gross total resection. Of the remaining 160 patients only 53% of patients had fully conforming catheters in respect to overall placement and 51% had adequate catheter positioning scores. Better catheter positioning scores were not correlated with local tumor control (P = 0.61) or imaging change score (P = 0.86). OS and PFS were not correlated with catheter positioning score (OS: P = 0.53; PFS: P = 0.72 respectively), overall placement score (OS: P = 0.55; PFS: P = 0.35) or imaging changes on day 43 MRI (P = 0.88). Catheter positioning scores and overall catheter placement scores were not associated with clinical outcome in this large prospective trial.

Download full-text


Available from: Sabine Mueller,
12 Reads
  • Source
    • "CED [20, 21] is a minimally invasive technique of delivering drugs directly to brain tumors. A Phase 3 trial of IL-13 toxic conjugate showed equivalency to standard of care demonstrating the feasibility of CED for effective treatment [22]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: F10 is a novel anti-tumor agent with minimal systemic toxicity in vivo and which displays strong cytotoxicity towards glioblastoma (GBM) cells in vitro. Here we investigate the cytotoxicity of F10 towards GBM cells and evaluate the anti-tumor activity of locally-administered F10 towards an orthotopic xenograft model of GBM. The effects of F10 on thymidylate synthase (TS) inhibition and Topoisomerase 1 (Top1) cleavage complex formation were evaluated using TS activity assays and in vivo complex of enzyme bioassays. Cytotoxicity of F10 towards normal brain was evaluated using cortices from embryonic (day 18) mice. F10 displays minimal penetrance of the blood–brain barrier and was delivered by intra-cerebral (i.c.) administration and prospective anti-tumor response towards luciferase-expressing G48a human GBM tumors in nude mice was evaluated using IVIS imaging. Histological examination of tumor and normal brain tissue was used to assess the selectivity of anti-tumor activity. F10 is cytotoxic towards G48a, SNB-19, and U-251 MG GBM cells through dual targeting of TS and Top1. F10 is not toxic to murine primary neuronal cultures. F10 is well-tolerated upon i.c. administration and induces significant regression of G48a tumors that is dose-dependent. Histological analysis from F10-treated mice revealed tumors were essentially completely eradicated in F10-treated mice while vehicle-treated mice displayed substantial infiltration into normal tissue. F10 displays strong efficacy for GBM treatment with minimal toxicity upon i.c. administration establishing F10 as a promising drug-candidate for treating GBM in human patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11060-013-1321-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    Journal of Neuro-Oncology 12/2013; 116(3). DOI:10.1007/s11060-013-1321-1 · 3.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interleukin 13 receptor α 2 (IL-13Rα2) is a glioblastoma multiforme (GBM)-associated plasma membrane receptor, a brain tumor of dismal prognosis. Here, we isolated peptide ligands for IL-13Rα2 with use of a cyclic disulphide-constrained heptapeptide phages display library and 2 in vitro biopanning schemes with GBM cells that do (G26-H2 and SnB19-pcDNA cells) or do not (G26-V2 and SnB19-asIL-13Rα2 cells) over-express IL-13Rα2. We identified 3 peptide phages that bind to IL-13Rα2 in cellular and protein assays. One of the 3 peptide phages, termed Pep-1, bound to IL-13Rα2 with the highest specificity, surprisingly, also in a reducing environment. Pep-1 was thus synthesized and further analyzed in both linear and disulphide-constrained forms. The linear peptide bound to IL-13Rα2 more avidly than did the disulphide-constrained form and was efficiently internalized by IL-13Rα2-expressing GBM cells. The native ligand, IL-13, did not compete for the Pep-1 binding to the receptor and vice versa in any of the assays, indicating that the peptide might be binding to a site on the receptor different from the native ligand. Furthermore, we demonstrated by noninvasive near infrared fluorescence imaging in nude mice that Pep-1 binds and homes to both subcutaneous and orthotopic human GBM xenografts expressing IL-13Rα2 when injected by an intravenous route. Thus, we identified a linear heptapeptide specific for the IL-13Rα2 that is capable of crossing the blood-brain tumor barrier and homing to tumors. Pep-1 can be further developed for various applications in cancer and/or inflammatory diseases.
    Neuro-Oncology 09/2011; 14(1):6-18. DOI:10.1093/neuonc/nor141 · 5.56 Impact Factor
  • Handbook of Clinical Neurology 01/2012; 104:229-54. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-444-52138-5.00017-7
Show more