Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Old drugs still work! Oral etoposide in a relapsed medulloblastoma

  • Case Report
  • Published:
Child's Nervous System Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medulloblastoma is the most common malignant brain tumor in children. Approximately 30% of children with medulloblastoma will progress or relapse despite being treated. New therapies have been proposed in recent years, including high-dose chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. However, the best treatment for these patients remains unclear, and in this situation prognosis is poor. Oral etoposide has been used as a single agent or in combination for treating relapsed brain tumors since the 1990s. We report an 8-year-old patient with recurrent metastatic medulloblastoma who had an excellent response after treatment with oral etoposide, maintaining a great quality of life. As clinicians, we must always try to include our patients in clinical trials; however, when this is not possible, we should not forget that “old drugs” such as oral etoposide may work in some patients, with a good response of the tumor, and what is most important, providing the patient with a good quality of life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

VP:

Ventriculo-peritoneal

VP-16:

Etoposide

PR:

Partial response

CR:

Complete response

SD:

Stable disease

PD:

Progressive disease

References

  1. Scheinemann K, Bouffet E (2015) Pediatric neuro-oncology. Springer. Chapter 12. Embryonal brain tumors (127–138)

  2. Schwalbe EC, Lindsey JC, Nakjang S, Crosier S, Smith AJ, Hicks D, Rafiee G, Hill RM, Iliasova A, Stone T, Pizer B, Michalski A, Joshi A, Wharton SB, Jacques TS, Bailey S, Williamson D, Clifford SC (2017) Novel molecular subgroups for clinical classification and outcome prediction in childhood medulloblastoma: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol 18(7):958–971

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nygaard R, Kivivuori SM (2012) Treatment for recurrent medulloblastoma with intrathecal liposomal cytarabine and systemic metronomic combination therapy. Anti-Cancer Drugs 23(3):342–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ruggiero A, Rizzo D, Attin G et al (2010) Phase I study of temozolomide combined with oral etoposide in children with recurrent or progressive medulloblastoma. Eur J Cancer 46(16):2943–2949

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pizer B, Donachie P, Robinson K et al (2011) Treatment of recurrent central nervous system primitive neuroectodermal tumours in children and adolescents: results of a Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group study. Eur J Cancer 47:1389–1397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Needle MN, Molloy PT, Geyer JR, Herman-Liu A, Belasco JB, Goldwein JW, Sutton L, Phillips PC (1997) Phase II study of daily oral etoposide in children with recurrent brain tumors and other solid tumors. Med Pediatr Oncol 29(1):28–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chamberlain MC, Kormanik PA (1997) Chronic oral VP-16 for recurrent medulloblastoma. Pediatr Neurol 17(3):230–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ashley DM, Meier L, Kerby T, Zalduondo FM, Friedman HS, Gajjar A, Kun L, Duffner PK, Smith S, Longee D (1996) Response of recurrent medulloblastoma to low-dose oral etoposide. J Clin Oncol 14(6):1922–1927

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peryl A, Chocholous M, Kieran M et al (2012) Antiangiogenic metronomic therapy for children with recurrent embryonal brain tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 59(3):511–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Robison N, Campigotto F, Chi SN et al (2014) A phase II trial of a multi-agent oral antiangiogenic (metronomic) regimen in children with recurrent or progressive cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 61(3):636–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bautista F, Fioravantti V, de Rojas T, Carceller F, Madero L, Lassaletta A, Moreno L (2017) Medulloblastoma in children and adolescents: a systematic review of contemporary phase I and II clinical trials and biology update. Cancer Med 6(11):2606–2624

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dhall G, Grodman H, Sands S et al (2008) Outcome of children less than three years old at diagnosis with non-metastatic medulloblastoma treated with chemotherapy on the “Head Start I and II” protocols. Pediatr Blood Cancer 50:1169–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kieran MW, Turner CD, Rubin JB, Chi SN, Zimmerman MA, Chordas C, Klement G, Laforme A, Gordon A, Thomas A, Neuberg D, Browder T, Folkman J (2005) A feasibility trial of antiangiogenic (metronomic) chemotherapy in pediatric patients with recurrent or progressive cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 27(11):573–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gomez S, Garrido-Garcia A, Garcia-Gerique L et al (2018) A novel method for rapid molecular subgrouping of medulloblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 24(6):1355–1363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Davidson A, Gowing R, Lowis S, Newell D, Lewis I, Dicks-Mireaux C, Pinkerton CR (1997) Phase II study of 21 day schedule oral etoposide in children. Eur J Cancer 33(11):1816–1822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Korones D, Smith A, Foreman N, Bouffet E (2006) Temozolomide and oral VP-16 for children and young adults with recurrent or treatment-induced malignant gliomas. Pediatr Blood Cancer 47(3):37–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Esbenshade AJ, Kocak M, Hershon L et al (2017) A phase II feasibility study of oral etoposide given concurrently with radiotherapy followed by dose intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for children with newly diagnosed high-risk medulloblastoma (protocol POG 9631): a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64(6):1–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Le Deley MC, Vassal G, Tabi A, Shamsaldin A, Leblanc T, Hartmann O (2005) High cumulative rate of secondary leukemia after continuous etoposide treatment for solid tumors in children and young adults. Pediatr Blood Cancer 45:25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ezoe S (2012) Secondary leukemia associated with the anti-cancer agent, etoposide, a topoisomerase II inhibitor. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9(7):2444–2453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Winick NJ, McKenna RW, Shuster JJ et al (1993) Secondary acute myeloid leukemia in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with etoposide. J Clin Oncol 11(2):209–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Le Deley MC, Leblanc T, Shamsaldin A et al (2003) Risk of secondary leukemia after a solid tumor in childhood according to the dose of epipodophyllotoxins and anthracyclines: a case-control study by the Societé Française d’Oncologie Pédiatrique. J Clin Oncol 21(6):1074–1081

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Taylor MD, Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Remke M, Cho YJ, Clifford SC, Eberhart CG, Parsons DW, Rutkowski S, Gajjar A, Ellison DW, Lichter P, Gilbertson RJ, Pomeroy SL, Kool M, Pfister SM (2012) Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: the current consensus. Acta Neuropathol 123(4):465–472

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ramaswamy V, Remke M, Eric Bouffet E et al (2013) Recurrence patterns across medulloblastoma subgroups: an integrated clinical and molecular analysis. Lancet Oncol 14(12):1200–1207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Hospital Universitario Niño Jesús, Avenida Menendez Pelayo, 65, 28009, Madrid, Spain

    Marta Perez-Somarriba, Maitane Andión, Luis Madero & Alvaro Lassaletta

  2. Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, Spain

    Miguel A. López-Pino

  3. Developmental Tumor Biology Laboratory, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain

    Cinzia Lavarino

Authors
  1. Marta Perez-Somarriba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maitane Andión
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miguel A. López-Pino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cinzia Lavarino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luis Madero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alvaro Lassaletta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alvaro Lassaletta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perez-Somarriba, M., Andión, M., López-Pino, M.A. et al. Old drugs still work! Oral etoposide in a relapsed medulloblastoma. Childs Nerv Syst 35, 865–869 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04072-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04072-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation