Liposomal Cytarabine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Liposomal Cytarabine

Intrathecal liposomal cytarabine in children under 4 years with malignant brain tumors

2009 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro Lassaletta ◽  
Blanca Lopez-Ibor ◽  
Elena Mateos ◽  
Marta Gonzalez-Vicent ◽  
Antonio Perez-Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Tumors ◽  
Liposomal Cytarabine ◽  
Malignant Brain Tumors

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics of liposomal cytarabine in AML patients treated with CPX-351

2021 ◽  
Vol 338 ◽  
pp. 244-252
Author(s):  
Mélanie Donnette ◽  
Mourad Hamimed ◽  
Joseph Ciccolini ◽  
Yael Berda-Haddad ◽  
Elise Kaspi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liposomal Cytarabine

scholarly journals BMET-08. LONG-TERM INTRAVENTRICULAR THERAPY ALTERNATING ETOPOSIDE AND LIPOSOMAL CYTARABINE IS FEASIBLE AND SAFE: EXPERIENCE IN 57 CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (suppl_6) ◽  
pp. vi27-vi28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Slavc ◽  
Andreas Peyrl ◽  
Amedeo A. Azizi ◽  
Johannes Gojo ◽  
Dominik Reisinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Tumors ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Liposomal Cytarabine ◽  
Malignant Brain Tumors

scholarly journals Central nervous system prophylaxis with intrathecal liposomal cytarabine in diffuse large B‑cell lymphomas

2013 ◽  
Vol 123 (11) ◽  
pp. 589-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Krawczyk ◽  
Wojciech Jurczak ◽  
Monika Długosz‑Danecka ◽  
Agnieszka Zauska‑Giza ◽  
Justyna Dzietczenia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Liposomal Cytarabine ◽  
B Cell Lymphomas ◽  
Central Nervous System Prophylaxis ◽  
Large B Cell

Intracranial hypertension following intrathecal administration of liposomal cytarabine

2010 ◽  
Vol 258 (1) ◽  
pp. 162-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Lunskens ◽  
L. Lammertijn ◽  
D. Deeren ◽  
B. Bergmans ◽  
J. Maertens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intracranial Hypertension ◽  
Intrathecal Administration ◽  
Liposomal Cytarabine

Clinical experience using intrathecal liposomal cytarabine to manage neoplastic meningitis in three patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. e128-e130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael F. Duarte ◽  
Monserrat Arnan ◽  
Isabel Sánchez-Ortega ◽  
Maria Paz Queipo de Llano ◽  
Pascual Fernández Abellán
Keyword(s):  
Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia ◽  
Clinical Experience ◽  
Neoplastic Meningitis ◽  
Promyelocytic Leukemia ◽  
Liposomal Cytarabine

NCMP-14. WHOLE BRAIN RADIOTHERAPY COMBINED WITH INTRATHECAL LIPOSOMAL CYTARABINE FOR LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS – A SAFETY ANALYSIS AND VALIDATION OF THE EANO-ESMO CLASSIFICATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi149-vi150
Author(s):  
Sarah Iglseder ◽  
Martha Nowosielski ◽  
Gabriel Bsteh ◽  
Armin Muigg ◽  
Johanna Heugenhauser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment Response ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Liposomal Cytarabine ◽  
Csf Cytology ◽  
Whole Brain ◽  
Toxicity Criteria

Abstract BACKGROUND Although there is no proven standard therapy for leptomeningeal metastases (LM), treatment often includes intrathecal chemotherapy combined with whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). Little is known on the toxicity of such combination therapies. We performed a retrospective safety analysis for the combination of intrathecal liposomal cytarabine with WBRT in patients with LM and validated the EANO-ESMO classification in this unique cohort. METHODS Treatment toxicities in patients diagnosed with LM between 2004 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed according to the RTOG (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group) and NCI CTCAE V5.0 (Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events) toxicity criteria. Diagnostic criteria and treatment response as assessed by EANO-ESMO classification were correlated with survival by Kaplan Meier analysis and Breslow test. RESULTS 40 patients with LM who were treated with combined WBRT and intrathecal cytarabine, were identified. Ten patients (25%) experienced adverse events ≥ grade 3 according to the RTOG-toxicity criteria, in 22 patients (55%) CTCAE criteria ≥3 grade were detected. Median overall survival (mOS) was 124.0 days [72.9;175.1]. Median time to neurological progression was 52.0 days [41.1; 62.8]. When comparing the diagnostic criteria, patients with a positive CSF cytology (n=26) showed worse prognosis compared to patients with a negative CSF cytology (n=14) (mOS 84 days [44.0;124.0] versus 198.0 days [162.6;233.4] days, p=0.006, respectively). The EANO-ESMO response assessment correlated significantly with survival - “stable” (n=7) mOS 233.0 [76.5;389.5] days, “response” (n=10) mOS 206.0 [193.9;218.9] days, “progression” (n=17) mOS 45.0 [34.4;55.6] days, “suspicion of progression” (n=6) mOS 133.0 [65.8;200.2] days (overall, p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective analysis, the treatment combination of WBRT and intrathecal liposomal cytarabine shows an acceptable safety profile. The EANO-ESMO classification for diagnosis and treatment response predicts survival

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document