Lumbroso-Le Rouic L, Aerts I, Hajage D, Lévy-Gabriel C, Savignoni A, Algret N, Cassoux N, Bertozzi A-I, Esteve M, Doz F, Desjardins L
Department of Ocular Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Department of Pediatric, Adolescent and Young Adults Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Eye (Lond). 2016 Jan;30(1):46-52. doi: 10.1038/eye.2015.179. Epub 2015 Oct 2.
PurposeIntraocular retinoblastoma treatments often combine chemotherapy and focal treatments. A first prospective protocol of conservative treatments in our institution showed the efficacy of the use of two courses of chemoreduction with etoposide and carboplatin, followed by chemothermotherapy using carboplatin as a single agent and diode laser. In order to decrease the possible long-term toxicity of chemotherapy due to etoposide, a randomized neoadjuvant phase II protocol was conducted using vincristine-carboplatin vs etoposide-carboplatin.Patients and methodsThe study was proposed when initial tumor characteristics did not allow front-line local treatments. Patients included in this phase II noncomparative randomized study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy received vincristin-carboplatin (new arm) vs etoposide-carboplatin (our reference arm). They were subsequently treated by local treatments and chemothermotherapy. Primary end point was the need for secondary enucleation or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) not exceeding 40% at 2 years.ResultsA total of 65 eyes in 55 children were included in the study (May 2004 to August 2009). Of these, 32 eyes (27 children) were treated in the arm etoposide-carboplatin and 33 eyes (28 children) in the arm vincristin-carboplatin. At 2 years after treatment, 23/33 (69.7%) eyes were treated and salvaged without EBRT or enucleation in the arm vincristin-carboplatin and 26/32 (81.2%) in the arm etoposide-carboplatin.ConclusionEven if the two treatment arms could be considered as sufficiently active according to the study decision rules, neoadjuvant chemotherapy by two cycles of vincristine-carboplatin followed by chemothermotherapy appear to offer less optimal local control than the etoposide-carboplatin combination.
目的
眼内视网膜母细胞瘤的治疗通常联合化疗和局部治疗。我们机构首个保守治疗的前瞻性方案显示,使用依托泊苷和顺铂进行两个疗程的化疗减积,随后使用顺铂作为单一药物并联合二极管激光进行化疗热疗是有效的。为了降低依托泊苷导致的化疗可能的长期毒性,开展了一项长春新碱 - 顺铂对比依托泊苷 - 顺铂的随机新辅助II期方案。
患者与方法
当初始肿瘤特征不允许进行一线局部治疗时提出该研究。纳入该新辅助化疗II期非对照随机研究的患者接受长春新碱 - 顺铂(新组)对比依托泊苷 - 顺铂(我们的参照组)治疗。随后他们接受局部治疗和化疗热疗。主要终点是2年时二次眼球摘除或外照射放疗(EBRT)的需求不超过40%。
结果
该研究共纳入了55名儿童的65只眼(2004年5月至2009年8月)。其中,32只眼(27名儿童)接受依托泊苷 - 顺铂组治疗,33只眼(28名儿童)接受长春新碱 - 顺铂组治疗。治疗后2年,长春新碱 - 顺铂组23/33(69.7%)只眼接受治疗且未进行EBRT或眼球摘除而得以挽救,依托泊苷 - 顺铂组为26/32(81.2%)。
结论
即使根据研究决策规则,两个治疗组都可被认为有足够的活性,但两个周期长春新碱 - 顺铂序贯化疗热疗的新辅助化疗似乎比依托泊苷 - 顺铂联合方案提供的局部控制效果欠佳。