SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • low-grade glioma;
  • carboplatin hypersensitivity;
  • vinblastine;
  • children

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. REFERENCES

BACKGROUND

Carboplatin-based regimens have demonstrated activity in unresectable low-grade glioma (LGG) in children. Despite an interesting toxicity profile, the use of these regimens has been limited by the development of carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) in up to 30% of patients. Desensitization has been the recommended approach for HSR. However, no guidelines have existed to aid physicians when carboplatin desensitization techniques fail.

METHODS

A pilot study of monotherapy with weekly vinblastine for LGG in 9 children who developed carboplatin HSR on a carboplatin and vincristine regimen was performed.

RESULTS

Vinblastine toxicity was moderate and readily manageable. None of the 9 patients had disease progression on therapy. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of tumor size from diagnosis to the end of vinblastine treatment showed 1 complete response (CR), 1 partial response (PR), 5 objective effects (OE), and 2 stable diseases (SD).

CONCLUSIONS

This experience suggested that weekly vinblastine has a good efficacy to toxicity ratio in the treatment of LGG and can be a valuable option for children who develop severe HSR. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

Over the last decade, evidence has been increasing that chemotherapy is a valid alternative to radiation in the management of nonresectable pediatric low-grade glioma (LGG). Although additional data are needed to assess the long-term benefit of chemotherapy, preliminary results have suggested that chemotherapy can delay or even allow avoidance of the use of radiation in a significant proportion of children.1–6 Several chemotherapy regimens have been used, but the choice of the optimal regimen is still a matter of debate. Because children treated for LGG are expected to have prolonged survival, long-term toxicity of chemotherapy should be one of the major factors influencing the choice of chemotherapeutic agents. Among the different regimens of chemotherapy used in the treatment of pediatric LGG, carboplatin alone and vincristine–carboplatin combinations have shown an attractive toxicity profile. Acute toxicity is mainly myelosuppression — neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia — and there is no significant long-term toxicity.1 However, the limiting factor of carboplatin-containing regimens is the occurrence of carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). When carboplatin HSR occurs, desensitization techniques have been suggested with anecdotal reports of short-term and even long-term benefit.7 However, there are no accurate predictive factors for the severity of allergic symptoms in cases of further carboplatin exposure, and most often physicians prefer to discontinue carboplatin, especially in cases of life-threatening reactions. For children who develop allergic reactions early in the treatment course or in situations where the physician considers that more chemotherapy would be beneficial for the patient, there is no established recommendation in the literature concerning potential substitution for carboplatin or chemotherapy guidelines in carboplatin intolerant patients. The current study reports a pilot experience using weekly vinblastine in LGG patients, with severe carboplatin allergy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. REFERENCES

Patients were identified from three institutions, the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, and the King Hussein Cancer Center in Amman.

Patients included in the study were children diagnosed with LGG who had developed an allergic reaction to carboplatin, failed carboplatin desensitization, and, subsequently, received weekly vinblastine chemotherapy. The choice of second line vinblastine chemotherapy was chosen in accord with the therapeutic policy of the hematology and oncology division of our hospital. The study was approved by the local Research Ethic Boards.

Grading of allergic reactions was defined according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE version 3.0) grading system (Table 1). Management of carboplatin hypersensitivity varied between institutions and physicians. Some children were rechallenged with carboplatin using different premedication schedules (antihistamine ± steroid). Other children received a desensitization protocol following a pretreatment with antihistamine and steroids. Desensitization protocol consisted of a progressive increased rate of the carboplatin infusion within a variable period of time. Vinblastine was given as a weekly injection of 6mg/m2. The treatment was started when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was > 1000/mm3 and the platelet count was > 100 000/mm3. The dose of vinblastine was reduced to 4mg/m2 in cases of myelotoxicity defined as an ANC ≤ 750/mm3. The duration of vinblastine chemotherapy was at the discretion of the physician. During vinblastine administration, response was evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with and without gadolinium, usually every 3 months. Tumor response was recorded based on the measurement of the tumor using the 2 largest perpendicular diameters in two planes (sagittal and axial). Complete response (CR) was defined as no detectable disease. Partial response (PR) was defined as a ≥ 50% decrease of the product of the 2 largest perpendicular diameters, and objective effect (OE) was defined as a > 25% (but < 50 %) decrease in the product of the 2 largest perpendicular diameters. Progressive disease (PD) was defined as an increase of > 25% in the product of the 2 largest perpendicular diameters or the development of a new lesion. Stable disease (SD) related to all other situations.

Table 1. Allergic Grading Toxicity according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 3.0
Grade 1Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4
Transient skin rashUrticaria, hivesFace & neck swellingAnaphylaxis
 Dyspnea, mild bronchospasm (cough without wheezing)Bronchospasm wheezing + requiring parenteral medicationRespiratory distress, cyanosis, shortness of breath
Drug fever <38 °CDrug fever > 38 °CSerum sickness arthralgia, lymphadenopathy, joint pain, myalgiaHypotension tachycardia, cardiac arrest, loss of conscious

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. REFERENCES

Nine patients diagnosed with LGG treated with second line vinblastine following carboplatin allergy were identified in the 3 institutions. There were 5 girls and 4 boys. Median age at diagnosis was 2.1 years (0.6–11.4 yrs). Seven tumors were located in the optic pathway, one in the spinal cord, and one patient had a diffuse leptomeningeal low-grade oligoastrocytoma. Six patients had surgery at the time of presentation (four biopsies, two partial resections). All patients were initially treated with the vincristine–carboplatin combination. Carboplatin was given in a monthly schedule (550 mg/m2 intravenously [i.v.] over 1 hour) in 4 patients8 and in a weekly schedule (175 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 hour) in 5 patients.1 The median time to first allergic reaction was 4.2 months (range, 1.8–9.1 mos) for a median number of 8 injections of carboplatin (range, 4–23 injections). The cumulative dose of carboplatin at the time of first allergic reaction was 3330 mg/m2 (range, 1225–4900 mg/m). The initial allergic reaction was a Grade 1 HSR in six patients, a Grade 3 in two patients and a Grade 4 in one patient. Eight of 9 patients were rechallenged with further carboplatin injections. Three of these patients received additional carboplatin with premedication only. One of these three patients tolerated 3 more cycles, and the two others experienced acute systemic reaction that required discontinuation of the infusion at the end of the first subsequent cycle.

Six patients received further carboplatin administration using various premedication schedules in addition to a carboplatin desensitization protocol. The desensitization enabled the administration of only 1 additional carboplatin infusion in 3 patients, 3 additional infusions in 1 patient, and 17 infusions in 1 patient who was treated with the weekly carboplatin schedule. In the sixth patient, the first attempt at desensitizing was unsuccessful, and carboplatin administration had to be interrupted during the infusion. With the use of desensitization techniques and premedication, the total cumulative dose of carboplatin ranged from 1550 to 5040 mg/m2 (median, 3550 mg/m2) with a median gain of 550 mg/m2 between the first reaction and carboplatin discontinuation (Table 2).

Table 2. Patient characteristics
No.GenderNF1 statusAge at diagnosis (yrs)Tumor locationMetastasis statusSurgeryCB/VCR scheduleCumulative CB dose at allergic reaction (mg/m2)No. of CB injections/No. expected at time of 1st CB HSRTotal dose of CB (mg/m2)NCI grade of initial CB allergic reactionNCI grade of further allergic reaction
  1. NF1:; CB: carboplatin; VCR: vincristine; HSR: hypersensitivity reaction; NCI: National Cancer Institute; F: female; OPG: optic pathway glioma; OPHG: optic pathway& hypothalamic glioma; B: biopsy; M: male; SCT: spinal cord tumor;. IR:.

1F+2.0OPG00monthly38008/1238004-
2F11.4OPHG0Bweekly14008/40248522
3M1.5OPG0Bweekly33606/40504022
4F1.6SCT C2 to T50IRweekly490028/40496022
5F6.9OPHG0Bweekly12257/40155023
6M2.7OPHG extension midbrain00weekly192511/40490022
7M+4.5OPG00monthly26955/12269533
8M5.2Primary leptomeningeal + spinal disseminated tumor+Bmonthly33006/12330033
9F0.6OPG0IRmonthly44408/12499523

All the carboplatin-sensitive patients were treated with weekly vinblastine (6mg/m2). Six patients completed treatment after a median duration of 7.4 months (range, 1.3–9.9 mos) for a median cumulative dose of 165 mg/m2 of vinblastine (range, 36–264 mg/m2). Three patients are currently still on treatment, at 3 and 6 months after initiation of vinblastine.

The treatment was well tolerated in all patients. The main toxicity was myelosuppression with six patients experiencing neutropenia (two Grade 1 to 2 and four Grade 3 to 4 ANC toxicity). No patient required blood or platelet transfusions. The vinblastine dose was reduced to 4 mg/m2 in two patients because of hematologic toxicity. Two patients experienced uncomplicated fever and neutropenia episode. No bacterial documentation of these episodes was found. One patient had Grade 2 alopecia; four patients Grades 1 and 4 had no evidence of hair loss. Two patients, who had initial alopecia, had significant hair growth during the course of vinblastine. No allergic reaction was noticed. No nausea and vomiting were recorded. No preventive antiemetic treatment was necessary before the administration of vinblastine.

Tumor Response

Our group evaluated tumor response before initiation of vinblastine, recognizing that as vinblastine therapy was always initiated immediately after discontinuation of previous regimen, the evaluation of the tumor response was difficult. Before initiation of vinblastine, one patient had shown PR to carboplatin–vincristine, two had OE, and six had SD. Subsequent serial evaluation of tumor size from diagnosis to the end of the vinblastine administration showed one CR, one PR, five OEs, and two SDs (Table 3). The tumor response of one of three patients still on treatment is illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 3. Evaluation of Tumor Response
No.Tumor locationTotal no. of VBL injectionsCumulative dose of VBL (mg/m2)Tumor response to VCR/CB from diagnosisTumor response on VBL from VCR/CB evaluationOverall tumor response from diagnosisProgression postvinblastineFollow-up (mos) from diagnosis
  1. VBL: vinblastine; VCR; vincristine; CB: carboplatin; OPG: optic pathway glioma; OE: objective effect; SD:; OPHG: optic pathway and hypothalamic glioma; PR: partial response; SCT: spinal cord tumor; CR: complete response; Σevaluation of vinblastine treatment at 6 mos (Patients 5, 6) and 3 mos (Patient 9).

1OPG636OESDOE045.9
2OPHG34144OESDOE027.5
3OPG28168OEPRPR045.3
4SCT C2 to T533/36198SDCRCR+29.4
5OPHGOn treatmentOn treatmentSDOEΣOEΣ06.0
6OPHG extension midbrainOn treatmentOn treatmentSDOEΣOEΣ015.0
7OPG27162SDSDSD020.5
8Primary leptomeningeal + spinal disseminated tumor44264SDSDSD022.0
9OPGOn treatmentOn treatmentSDOEOEΣ016.0
thumbnail image

Figure 1. Patient 5 tumor response evaluation (A) previnblastine, and (B) after six months on vinblastine.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Patients have been followed with a median followup of 22 months (range, 6.0–45.9 mos) from diagnosis and 10 months (range, 3.0–32.4 mos) from initiation of vinblastine. One patient who achieved a CR on vinblastine experienced a local recurrence 9 months after the end of the vinblastine treatment (27 mos after diagnosis) and is currently on a third line of chemotherapy.

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. REFERENCES

Carboplatin allergic hypersensitivity is well described both in adults and in children.9–11 In the pediatric population, different schedules of carboplatin are associated with different incidences of allergic reactions. The highest incidence is currently reported among the group of children with LGG treated with either carboplatin alone or with the vincristine–carboplatin combination. The reported incidence of this complication has increased since the first report from Packer et al. and ranges 7–32%. It is most likely that the initial report of 7% in children with LGG treated with vincristine and carboplatin has underestimated the real incidence or only reported severe allergic events.1 As this complication becomes better recognized and reported, incidence in the more recent reports reaches more consistently 30%.4, 12–13

Carboplatin HSR appears to be associated with the cumulative number of injections rather than the cumulative dose of the drug. Schiavetti et al. has reported a cumulative risk of 2% at 6 cycles rising to 47% for greater than 12 cycles of carboplatin.14 There is also some suggestion that the weekly schedule and a lower dose per infusion could be associated with a higher incidence of carboplatin HSR compared with monthly infusion at higher doses.15 Nevertheless, there is no reliable predictive factor to identify the patients at risk of HSR. Furthermore, the severity of the HSR is unpredictable, ranging from mild skin rash to life-threatening anaphylactic reaction.16–17 There is also no clear clinical or biologic factor that can predict an individual reaction to further carboplatin exposure.18–19 To overcome this problem, various protocols of desensitization have been proposed.7, 12, 20–22 Although some success has been reported with this strategy, reexposure to carboplatin is not without risk. Most reports mention the need to perform desensitization techniques in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Moreover, the gain in terms of additional courses of carboplatin allowed by this desensitization is generally disappointing, leading at the best to a delay of carboplatin discontinuation.7, 12 In our experience, the median additional gain of carboplatin obtained with this technique was 550 mg/m2. There is no large pediatric series to confirm the effectiveness of this approach; however, a recent report from the HIT-SIOP group suggests that the majority of physicians confronted with carboplatin HSR ultimately discontinue carboplatin administration.13 In our experience, only six out of the eight rechallenged patients were actually able to receive further carboplatin infusions (1–3 infusions). Only 1 patient treated with the weekly carboplatin schedule was able to receive 17 additional infusions, but eventually this patient developed a reaction of increasing severity in addition to a cushingoid appearance because of the frequent need for steroid premedication. None of the patients completed their planned vincristine–carboplatin treatment.

Despite the high incidence of carboplatin HSR among the LGG pediatric population, there is no guideline for the management of these patients when further administration of carboplatin is considered unsafe. A physician may consider that, at the time of the carboplatin HSR, the patient has received enough chemotherapy and decide to closely observe this patient without further chemotherapy. However, most of these chemotherapy protocols are 12 to 16 months in duration, and the risk of early chemotherapy discontinuation is unknown, particularly when children develop carboplatin HSR during an early course of their treatment. In our experience, six patients developed their first carboplatin HSR less than half way through the course of their treatment. For the three patients with a late onset of carboplatin HSR, the decision to continue chemotherapy was made because of evidence of aggressive tumor behavior (two patients) or late/slow response to chemotherapy (one patient). Another alternative would be to consider the occurrence of HSR as a chemotherapy failure and proceed to radiation. However, the majority of physicians will consider radiation as salvage treatment in the eventuality of tumor progression rather than as an alternative to carboplatin in case of HSR. The substitution of another agent for carboplatin is an option. Gnekow et al. have recently reported in the HIT-LGG study an incidence of 32% allergic reaction.13 Among their 27 reacting patients, only 1 patient received further carboplatin at reduced dose. In 21 patients, cisplatin or cyclophosphamide was substituted for carboplatin. Three other patients who were near completion of their planned chemotherapy did not receive further chemotherapy. Gnekow et al. do not provide a separate analysis of the outcome of this group of allergic patients.

The natural history of nonresectable LGG is often unpredictable and the optimal management of these tumors is a source of passionate debate. There is growing evidence that there is no straightforward treatment for these tumors, and their management should be considered in the context of a chronic condition with emphasis on long-term toxicity. Therefore, the choice of chemotherapy agents needs to take into account the long-term perspective ensuring a minimum of late side effect. Carboplatin-containing regimens fulfill these criteria with excellent activity and little evidence of long-term toxicity. However, many other regimens used in children with LGG contain agents associated with significant long-term toxicity. Regimens including alkylating agents such as CCNU, procarbazine, or temozolomide are theoretically associated with increased risk of mutagenesis.23 Similarly, the prolonged use of DNA topoisomerase II inhibitors, such as etoposide, is associated with risk of secondary leukemia.24 Despite an interesting 70% of objective response rate, the cisplatin–etoposide combination used in LGG is associated with a high incidence of ototoxicity, which can be devastating in the context of children with optochiasmatic glioma and severe visual impairment.6 In the current study, our group took the option of a substitution using a weekly schedule of vinblastine.

Vinblastine has been widely used in oncology. In children, it is used for the treatment of several malignant conditions including Hodgkin disease, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and germ cell tumors.25–27 It is also commonly used in the management of chronic conditions such as Langerhans cell histiocytosis, aggressive desmoid tumors, and fibromatosis.28, 29 The toxicity profile of vinblastine is excellent with no evidence of long-term toxicity, even after prolonged exposure. Central nervous system (CNS) penetration of vinblastine is poor, and this drug has only been used in combination with other agents for the treatment of intracranial germ cell tumors. However, vinblastine has shown activity against human glioma xenografts.30 In a pilot study, Bouffet et al. reported promising activity with vinblastine in children with recurrent and refractory LGG.31 In the Bouffet study, all children had previously received chemotherapy and 6 out of 11 children treated with weekly vinblastine showed a response. Toxicity was moderate to absent.

The mechanism of action of vinblastine in LGG is not known. Preclinical data have demonstrated an antiangiogenic activity of low-dose vinblastine in models in vitro.32, 33 These observations suggest potential antiangiogenic effect of vinblastine on LGG, as the poor CNS penetration of this agent and the low mitotic activity of pediatric LGG do not support a direct cytotoxic effect.

In the current study, six patients experienced transient and moderate hematologic toxicity. No other significant toxicity was noted. With a median followup of more than 2 years, no patient has shown any evidence of long-term toxicity.

In the context of our pilot study, the assessment and interpretation of tumor response is difficult, as all patients were already treated with chemotherapy at the time of initiation of vinblastine. Because of previous treatment with vincristine and carboplatin, tumor shrinkage may be interpreted as a continuous benefit of the initial chemotherapy. However, it is noteworthy that none of the nine patients showed progression. Of 9 patients, 7 had > 25% tumor shrinkage, and 2 had SD during the treatment with vinblastine. One patient experienced a recurrence of a spinal cord astrocytoma 9 months after completion of vinblastine.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. REFERENCES

The current study suggests that vinblastine is a valuable option in children with LGG, treated with carboplatin containing regimen, who develop HSR to carboplatin and fail desensitization techniques. The weekly administration of single agent vinblastine is well tolerated with moderate hematologic toxicity and no evidence of long-term toxicity. Further studies should be conducted to confirm the benefit of vinblastine in children with LGG.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS
  7. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Packer RJ, Lange B, Ater J, et al. Carboplatin and vincristine for recurrent and newly diagnosed low-grade gliomas of childhood. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11: 850856
  • 2
    Packer RJ, Ater J, Allen J, et al. Carboplatin and vincristine chemotherapy for children with newly diagnosed progressive low-grade gliomas. J Neurosurg. 1997; 86: 747754
  • 3
    Gajjar A, Heideman RL, Kovnar EH, et al. Response of pediatric low grade gliomas to chemotherapy. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1993; 19: 113118
  • 4
    Moghrabi A, Friedman HS, Burger PC, Tien R, Oakes WJ. Carboplatin treatment of progressive optic pathway gliomas to delay radiotherapy. J Neurosurg. 1993; 79: 223227
  • 5
    Laithier V, Grill J, Le Deley MC, et al. Progression-free survival in children with optic pathway tumors: dependence on age and the quality of the response to chemotherapy—results of the first French prospective study for the French Society of Pediatric Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 45724578.
  • 6
    Massimino M, Spreafico F, Cefalo G, et al. High response rate to cisplatin/etoposide regimen in childhood low-grade glioma. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 42094216.
  • 7
    Broome CB, Schiff RI, Friedman HS. Successful desensitization to carboplatin in patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1996; 26: 105110.
  • 8
    Perilongo G, Walker DA, Taylor RE, et al. Vincristine (VCR) carboplatin (CBDCA) in hypothalamic-chiasmatic low grade glioma (HC-LGG) [abstract]. SIOP LGG report. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2000; 35: 190.
  • 9
    Saunders MP, Denton CP, O'Brien ME, Blake P, Gore M, Wiltshaw E. Hypersensitivity reactions to cisplatin and carboplatin—a report on six cases. Ann Oncol. 1992; 3: 574576.
  • 10
    Markman M, Kennedy A, Webster K, et al. Clinical features of hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 1141.
  • 11
    Polyzos A, Tsavaris N, Kosmas C, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin administration are common but not always severe: a 10-year experience. Oncology. 2001; 61: 129133.
  • 12
    Lazzareschi I, Ruggiero A, Riccardi R, Attina G, Colosimo C, Lasorella A. Hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin in children. J Neurooncol. 2002; 58: 3337.
  • 13
    Gnekow AK, Kaatsch P, Kortmann R, Wiestler OD. [HIT-LGG: effectiveness of carboplatin-vincristine in progressive low-grade gliomas of childhood—an interim report]. Klin Padiatr. 2000; 212: 177184.
  • 14
    Schiavetti A, Varrasso G, Maurizi P, Castello MA. Hypersensitivity to carboplatin in children. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1999; 32: 183185.
  • 15
    Yu DY, Dahl GV, Shames RS, Fisher PG. Weekly dosing of carboplatin increases risk of allergy in children. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2001; 23: 349352.
  • 16
    Konno R, Sato S, Yajima A. Anaphylactic reaction following multiple administration of carboplatin. Int J Clin Oncol. 1999; 4: 116117.
  • 17
    Sood AK, Gelder MS, Huang SW, Morgan LS. Anaphylaxis to carboplatin following multiple previous uncomplicated courses. Gynecol Oncol. 1995; 57: 131132.
  • 18
    Zanotti KM, Rybicki LA, Kennedy AW, et al. Carboplatin skin testing: a skin-testing protocol for predicting hypersensitivity to carboplatin chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 31263129.
  • 19
    Markman M, Zanotti K, Kulp B, Peterson G, Markman M. Relationship between a history of systemic allergic reactions and risk of subsequent carboplatin hypersensitivity. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 89: 514516.
  • 10
    Ogle SK, Rose MM, Wildes CT. Development and implementation of a carboplatin desensitization protocol for children with neurofibromatosis, type 1 and hypersensitivity reactions in an outpatient oncology clinic. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2002; 19: 122126.
  • 21
    Markman M, Hsieh F, Zanotti K, et al. Initial experience with a novel desensitization strategy for carboplatin-associated hypersensitivity reactions: carboplatin-hypersensitivity reactions. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004; 130: 2528.
  • 22
    Moreno-Ancillo A, Dominguez-Noche C, Gil-Adrados AC, Cosmes PM, Duarte I, Mateos Y. Anaphylactoid reaction to carboplatin: successful “desensitization.” Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2003; 31: 342344.
  • 23
    Goldstein LS. Dominant lethal mutations induced in mouse spermatogonia by mechlorethamine, procarbazine and vincristine administered in 2-drug and 3-drug combinations. Mutat Res. 1987; 191: 171176.
  • 24
    Le Deley MC, Leblanc T, Shamsaldin A, et al. Risk of secondary leukemia after a solid tumor in childhood according to the dose of epipodophyllotoxins and anthracyclines: a case–control study by the Societe Francaise d'Oncologie Pediatrique. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 10741081.
  • 25
    Brugieres L, Quartier P, Le Deley MC, et al. Relapses of childhood anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: treatment results in a series of 41 children—a report from the French Society of Pediatric Oncology. Ann Oncol. 2000; 11: 5358.
  • 26
    Landman-Parker J, Pacquement H, Leblanc T, et al. Localized childhood Hodgkin's disease: response-adapted chemotherapy with etoposide, bleomycin, vinblastine, and prednisone before low-dose radiation therapy-results of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology Study MDH90. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 15001507.
  • 27
    Baranzelli MC, Bouffet E, Quintana E, Portas M, Thyss A, Patte C. Non-seminomatous ovarian germ cell tumours in children. Eur J Cancer. 2000; 36: 376383.
  • 28
    Minkov M, Grois N, Heitger A, et al. Treatment of multisystem Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Results of the DAL-HX 83 and DAL-HX 90 studies. DAL-HX Study Group. Klin Padiatr. 2000; 212: 139144.
  • 29
    Skapek SX, Hawk BJ, Hoffer FA, et al. Combination chemotherapy using vinblastine and methotrexate for the treatment of progressive desmoid tumor in children. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16: 30213027.
  • 30
    Eikesdal HP, Bjerkvig R, Dahl O. Vinblastine and hyperthermia target the neovasculature in BT(4)AN rat gliomas: therapeutic implications of the vascular phenotype. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 51: 535544.
  • 31
    Bouffet E, Hargrave D, Cairney E, Garre ML, Slave I, Baruchel S. Weekly vinblastine for recurrent/progressive low grade gliomas [abstract]. Proceedings of the XXXIV SIOP Meeting. Med Ped Oncol. 2002; 39: 229.
  • 32
    Vacca A, Iurlaro M, Ribatti D, et al. Antiangiogenesis is produced by nontoxic doses of vinblastine. Blood. 1999; 94: 41434155.
  • 33
    Klement G, Baruchel S, Rak J, et al. Continuous low-dose therapy with vinblastine and VEGF receptor-2 antibody induces sustained tumor regression without overt toxicity. J Clin Invest. 2000; 105: R15R24.