• Aucun résultat trouvé

Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) at recurrence: is there a window to test new therapies in some patients?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) at recurrence: is there a window to test new therapies in some patients?"

Copied!
2
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Article

Reference

Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) at recurrence: is there a window to test new therapies in some patients?

JANSSENS, Geert O, KRAMM, Christof M, VON BUEREN, André

JANSSENS, Geert O, KRAMM, Christof M, VON BUEREN, André. Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) at recurrence: is there a window to test new therapies in some patients? Journal of Neuro-Oncology , 2018, vol. 139, no. 2, p. 501

DOI : 10.1007/s11060-018-2871-z PMID : 29667083

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:128632

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

Vol.:(0123456789)

1 3

Journal of Neuro-Oncology (2018) 139:501 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-018-2871-z

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) at recurrence: is there a window to test new therapies in some patients?

Geert O. Janssens1  · Christof M. Kramm2 · Andre O. von Bueren3

Received: 20 March 2018 / Accepted: 12 April 2018 / Published online: 17 April 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

To the Editor,

We would like to comment on the manuscript entitled: “Dif- fuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) at recurrence: is there a window to test new therapies in some patients?”, published March 2018. In order to design early phase clinical trials for DIPG at the time of disease progression, Lobon-Iglesias et al. try to define a subgroup of long-term (> 3 months) survivors among a group of 142 patients with DIPG treated at a single institution [1]. On multivariate analysis (two way ANOVA), steroid-independence (≥ 2 months) and favorable Lansky Play Scale (LPS > 50%) at disease progression best predicted survival after relapse and hence, patients eligi- bility for clinical trials. Although significant on univariate analysis, re-irradiation (n = 14) or presence of histone H3.1 mutation (n = 20) did not improve statistical significance for prediction.

In a recently published European matched-cohort anal- ysis, comprising 70 patients with DIPG and progression

≥ 90 days from end of upfront radiotherapy, interval to pro- gression and the use of re-irradiation, remained prognostic for survival on multivariate analysis [2]. Re-irradiation was well tolerated while clinical improvement was observed in nearly 80% of patients. In this study, a risk score (RS) comprising five categories was developed to predict sur- vival from first progression. Median survival ranges from 1.0 month (RS-1) to 6.7 months (RS-5). No information on duration of steroid-independency, LPS or histone H3 muta- tions was available for this analysis.

In absence of a clinical trial, and according to SIOP-E recommendations, re-irradiation of children with DIPG at first progression can be considered when eligibility criteria are fulfilled and radio-necrosis after upfront radiotherapy is excluded [2]. Recently, this policy has been adopted by the National Cancer Institute (https ://www.cance r.gov/types /brain /hp/child -gliom a-treat ment-pdq#secti on/_55).

Both studies demonstrate that at least four variables can impact survival from progression [1, 2]. At present time it will be difficult to bypass the role of re-irradiation at the time of disease progression, even in the absence of a randomized control trial, considered unfeasible for ethical, political and financial reasons within the SIOP-E community. Although we fully support the author’s statement that new and more efficient treatments in DIPG are needed, we want to express our concerns on the feasibility of new studies in DIPG at the time of progression for the number of reasons mentioned above.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of in- terest.

References

1. Lobon-Iglesias MJ, Giraud G, Castel D et al (2018) Diffuse intrin- sic pontine gliomas (DIPG) at recurrence: is there a window to test new therapies in some patients? J Neurooncol 137:111–118 2. Janssens GO, Gandola L, Bolle S et al (2017) Survival benefit for

patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) undergoing re-irradiation at first progression: a matched-cohort analysis on behalf of the SIOP-E-HGG/DIPG working group. Eur J Cancer 73:38–47

* Geert O. Janssens

g.o.r.janssens@umcutrecht.nl

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht and Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands

2 University Hospital Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany

3 Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Références

Documents relatifs

Patient : Tous les cas de rhabdomyolyse survenus chez les utilisateurs de statines (monothérapie ou combinai- son) ont été sélectionnés (n=21) et ont été appariés à 10

The so-called existence of a selective disorder of volition in apraxia of tool use implies that some patients could have difficulties in initiating tool-use actions without

kommen im Vidomnat von ficuf scheinen die Hörigen im Holz ob Nnterbllch zugehört zu haben, bis diese sich den 7. Dezember 1434 um 290 mörsinger Pfund von den letzten Vidonmen

You are right, but the equilibrium concentration of such a species (in a system for which hopping but not turning is possible) is, based on statistics plus relative proton and

Alors que l’exérèse complète a une valeur pronostique dans certains gliomes de haut grade, les DIPG (diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas) ne peuvent en bénéficier du fait d’une

The two main strategies for group recommendations are; aggre- gation of individual preferences into a single recommenda- tion list or aggregation of individual recommendation lists

Continental Shelf (CS1) 8 August 2002 Distribution of trace species in coastal and deep sea regions Vertical Profile (VP1) 10 August 2002 Several vertical profiles centred.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of bone fractures 1–13 despite a normal to high bone mineral density (BMD) compared with non-diabetic subjects