2017
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0324
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metronomic Chemotherapy vs Best Supportive Care in Progressive Pediatric Solid Malignant Tumors

Abstract: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01858571.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
55
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…No patients among the 12 with BS were able to complete the MC, and only one patient could be considered in SD. In addition, Pramanik et al compared MC and supportive care in progressive pediatric solid malignant tumors and found that median PFS and OS were similar in both groups with BS. Lastly, a recent study, investigating the efficacy of the addition of MC to standard chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy alone in patients with nonmetastatic high‐grade operable osteosarcoma, demonstrated that the addition of MC with methotrexate and cyclophosphamide was not statistically superior to the standard treatment without MC (5‐year PFS = 61% vs 64%, P = 0.395; 5‐year OS = 76% vs 73%, P = 0.539).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No patients among the 12 with BS were able to complete the MC, and only one patient could be considered in SD. In addition, Pramanik et al compared MC and supportive care in progressive pediatric solid malignant tumors and found that median PFS and OS were similar in both groups with BS. Lastly, a recent study, investigating the efficacy of the addition of MC to standard chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy alone in patients with nonmetastatic high‐grade operable osteosarcoma, demonstrated that the addition of MC with methotrexate and cyclophosphamide was not statistically superior to the standard treatment without MC (5‐year PFS = 61% vs 64%, P = 0.395; 5‐year OS = 76% vs 73%, P = 0.539).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, in a prospective, Phase II, open‐label, single‐arm, multi‐institutional study evaluating the efficacy of a “5‐drug” oral regimen in 100 patients with recurrent or progressive cancer, clinical efficacy was not demonstrated in bone tumors and high‐grade gliomas (HGGs) . Our own group published the first randomized controlled trial in relapsed refractory solid tumors, and showed that metronomic therapy was no better than placebo; however, subgroup analysis revealed that tumors other than bone sarcoma showed benefit for both progression‐free survival and overall survival (OS) with the use of metronomic therapy. Further, specific tumor‐related studies with metronomics showed that this form of treatment appears to work in neuroblastoma and RMS, but not so in osteosarcoma …”
Section: Clinical Usage In Pediatricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Metronomic studies exclusively focusing on Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuro‐ectodermal tumors are rare. The observed results from mixed‐bag studies show limited utility of metronomics in this disease . Likewise, a single‐arm study of a low‐dose anti‐angiogenic regimen of vinblastine and celecoxib in Ewing sarcoma following completion of treatment revealed limited usefulness as there was excess toxicity .…”
Section: Experience In Individual Pediatric Malignanciesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Clinical treatment typically comprises chemically synthesized medicines; however, these are very expensive and often have serious side effects (4)(5)(6). Recently, several studies have reported that some agents that are currently used to promote immunity may also inhibit tumour growth (7)(8)(9).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%