ECOM: Comparison of Different Methods to Test MGMT Status in Glioblastoma Patients

Sponsor
Center Eugene Marquis (Other)
Overall Status
Completed
CT.gov ID
NCT01345370
Collaborator
Rennes University Hospital (Other)
300
10
75
30
0.4

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

Treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastomas currently involves surgical resection followed by Temozolomide chemotherapy with concomitant radiotherapy, and then 6 cycles of Temozolomide in adjuvant. According to many studies, only those patients not expressing the enzyme repair MGMT benefit from the adjunction of Temozolomide. Therefore, many patients receive unnecessary treatment. The aim of this project is to compare different techniques for analysis of MGMT in order to choose the approach with the best cost/utility ratio, which will allow the selection of patients likely to respond to TMZ chemotherapy during the first course of GBM treatment.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase

Detailed Description

Treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastomas (GBM) currently involves surgical resection followed by Temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy with concomitant radiotherapy, and then 6 cycles of TMZ in adjuvant (Stupp schedule). According to many studies, only those patients not expressing the enzyme repair MGMT benefit from the adjunction of TMZ. Therefore, many patients receive unnecessary treatment at an average cost of about 15,000 euros.

The aim of this project is to compare different techniques for analysis of MGMT in order to choose the approach with the best cost/utility ratio, which will allow the selection of patients likely to respond to TMZ chemotherapy during the first course of GBM treatment. Another aspect of this project is to evaluate the extra cost produced by TMZ treatment, and therefore the expected cost saving in the case of using a reliable predictive factor. This kind of evaluation is of great importance, as the MGMT test status is beginning to appear in the decisional care trees of high-grade gliomas The two main techniques for MGMT analysis are currently immunohistochemistry (IH) and molecular analysis of promoter methylation of the gene. Immunohistochemistry is simple and quick, but there is no consensus about labelling or evaluation of the staining, all of which could lead to variability in results. Studies of promoter methylation are currently performed by the MS-PCR technique, in particular the article published in the N Engl J Med in 2005 showing that only patients with a methylated promoter benefit from TMZ adjunction. This technique appears somewhat rudimentary compared to techniques avoiding subjectivity linked to eye reading of the gel after electrophoresis of PCR products.

In phase one of this multicenter national study, IH, MS-PCR, MethyLight, pyrosequencing and MS-HRM will be compared in a retrospective study on 100 samples (frozen for molecular analysis and paraffin-embedded for IH), taken from patients treated according to the Stupp protocol and with a follow-up of 18 months at least. In phase 2, the two techniques with the best cost/efficacy ratio (based on predictive value, analytical quality and feasibility of the test) will be implemented in all the laboratories according to a standard protocol developed by the referral centre for the tests. The dissemination of quality controls will allow us to check that the same results are obtained from one laboratory to another. In phase 3, samples will be analysed prospectively in the different centres and a medico-economic analysis will be undertaken on the integration of MGMT analysis into the standard care of GBM patients. Two types of analysis will be performed: i) on the costs of the techniques, allowing us in particular to estimate the possible additional clinical cost generated and its effect on the cost of a hospital stay, in order to adjust the charging system, and ii) on alternative care strategies for the patients, with or without screening, leading to improve the target of treatments by TMZ, with the aim of improving the definition of "options and recommendations" (cost-utility analysis).

Study Design

Study Type:
Observational
Actual Enrollment :
300 participants
Time Perspective:
Prospective
Official Title:
Comparative Assessment of Methods to Analyze MGMT as a Predictive Factor of Response to Temozolomide in Glioblastomas.
Study Start Date :
Mar 1, 2009
Actual Primary Completion Date :
Apr 1, 2015
Actual Study Completion Date :
Jun 1, 2015

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
Stupp protocole

All subjects enrolled must be treated according to the Stupp schedule : surgical resection followed by Temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy with concomitant radiotherapy, and then 6 cycles of adjuvant Temzolomide.

Drug: Temozolomide
According to sites procedures
Other Names:
  • Temodal (brand name).
  • Radiation: Radiation Therapy
    According to sites procedures
    Other Names:
  • Radiotherapy
  • Outcome Measures

    Primary Outcome Measures

    1. Survival of patients according to their MGMT status. [12 months after last enrollment]

      Predictive MGMT methylation tests values related to mean overall survival.

    Secondary Outcome Measures

    1. Progression-Free Survival [12 months]

    Eligibility Criteria

    Criteria

    Ages Eligible for Study:
    18 Years to 70 Years
    Sexes Eligible for Study:
    All
    Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
    No
    Inclusion Criteria:
    • Adult, age from 18 to 70

    • Pre-surgical diagnosis compatible with a primary or secondary sub-tentorial glioblastoma than can be resected

    • No counter-indication to an adjuvant treatment according to the Stupp schedule

    • Free written informed consent

    Exclusion Criteria:
    • Absence of tumor sample available

    • Definite histology not related to a glioblastoma or a main oligodendroglioma component

    Contacts and Locations

    Locations

    Site City State Country Postal Code
    1 CHRU Hautepierre Strasbourg Alsace France 67
    2 CHU de Bordeaux Bordeaux Aquitaine France 33000
    3 CHU Cote de Nacre Caen Basse Normandie France 14000
    4 Center Eugene Marquis Rennes Brittany France 35000
    5 CHU La Salpetriere Paris Ile de France France 75000
    6 CHRU de Lille Lille Nord Pas-de-Calais France 59000
    7 CHU La Timone Marseille Paca France 13000
    8 CHU de Poitiers Poitiers Poitou-Charentes France 86000
    9 CHU de Grenoble Grenoble Rhone-Alpes France 38000
    10 CHU de Lyon Lyon Rhone-Alpes France 69000

    Sponsors and Collaborators

    • Center Eugene Marquis
    • Rennes University Hospital

    Investigators

    None specified.

    Study Documents (Full-Text)

    None provided.

    More Information

    Publications

    Responsible Party:
    , ,
    ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
    NCT01345370
    Other Study ID Numbers:
    • ECOM-Glioblastome
    First Posted:
    May 2, 2011
    Last Update Posted:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Last Verified:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Keywords provided by , ,
    Additional relevant MeSH terms:

    Study Results

    No Results Posted as of Jan 29, 2016