1. A phase IIa trial of molecular radiotherapy with 177-lutetium DOTATATE in children with primary refractory or relapsed high-risk neuroblastoma
- Author
-
Veronica Moroz, Connie Peet, Keith Wheatley, Matthew D Aldridge, Jamshed Bomanji, Jennifer Laidler, Mark N. Gaze, Jennifer E. Gains, and Simon Wan
- Subjects
Oncology ,medicine.medical_specialty ,177 Lutetium ,business.industry ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Gallium Radioisotopes ,General Medicine ,Lutetium ,medicine.disease ,Clinical trial ,Radiation therapy ,Neuroblastoma ,Refractory ,Internal medicine ,Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols ,Toxicity ,medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,High risk neuroblastoma ,Radiopharmaceuticals ,Stage (cooking) ,Child ,business - Abstract
The objective of this phase IIa, open-label, single-centre, single-arm, two-stage clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and activity of 177-lutetium DOTATATE (LuDO) molecular radiotherapy in neuroblastoma. Children with relapsed or refractory metastatic high-risk neuroblastoma were treated with up to four courses of LuDO. The administered activity was 75 to 100 MBq kg−1 per course, spaced at 8- to 12-week intervals. Outcomes were assessed by the International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria (primary outcome), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The trial recruited 21 patients; eight received the planned four courses. There was dose-limiting haematologic toxicity in one case, but no other significant haematologic or renal toxicities. None of 14 evaluable patients had an objective response at 1 month after completion of treatment (Wilson 90% CI 0.0, 0.16; and 95% CI is 0.0, 0.22). The trial did not therefore proceed to the second stage. The median PFS was 2.96 months (95% CI 1.71, 7.66), and the median OS was 13.0 months (95% CI 2.99, 21.52). In the absence of any objective responses, the use of LuDO as a single agent at the dose schedule used in this study is not recommended for the treatment of neuroblastoma. There are several reasons why this treatment schedule may not have resulted in objective responses, and as other studies do show benefit, the treatment should not be regarded as being of no value. Further trials designed to overcome this schedule’s limitations are required. ISRCTN98918118; URL: https://www.isrctn.com/search?q=98918118
- Published
- 2020