ArticleNeuro-oncology2013
Phase I trial of capecitabine rapidly disintegrating tablets and concomitant radiation therapy in children with newly diagnosed brainstem gliomas and high-grade gliomas.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A pediatric brain tumor consortium phase II trial of capecitabine rapidly disintegrating tablets with concomitant radiation therapy in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2018Trial
- Review
- Pharmacological Phase I Clinical Trials in Pediatric Brain Tumors (1990-2024): A Historical Perspective.Oncology research · 2025Review
- Children with DIPG and high-grade glioma treated with temozolomide, irinotecan, and bevacizumab: the Seattle Children's Hospital experience.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2020Article
- Potential New Therapies for Pediatric Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Review
- Trial Watch: Radioimmunotherapy for oncological indications.Oncoimmunology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted a phase I study to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and describe the dose-limiting toxicities and pharmacokinetics of oral capecitabine rapidly disintegrating tablets given concurrently with radiation therapy to children with newly diagnosed brainstem or high-grade gliomas.
methodsChildren 3-21 y with newly diagnosed intrinsic brainstem or high-grade gliomas were eligible for enrollment. The starting dose was 500 mg/m(2), given twice daily, with subsequent cohorts enrolled at 650 mg/m(2) and 850 mg/m(2) using a 3 + 3 phase I design. Children received capecitabine at the assigned dose daily for 9 wks starting from the first day of radiation therapy (RT). Following a 2-wk break, patients received 3 courses of capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days followed by a 7-day rest. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed in consenting patients. Six additional patients with intrinsic brainstem gliomas were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose to further characterize the pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiles.
resultsTwenty-four patients were enrolled. Twenty were fully assessable for toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicities were palmar plantar erythroderma (grades 2 and 3) and elevation of alanine aminotransferase (grades 2 and 3). Systemic exposure to capecitabine and metabolites was similar to or slightly lower than predicted based on adult data.
conclusionsCapecitabine with concurrent RT was generally well tolerated. The recommended phase II capecitabine dose when given with concurrent RT is 650 mg/m(2), administered twice daily. A phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of this regimen in children with intrinsic brainstem gliomas is in progress (PBTC-030).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.