老年肺癌患者术后辅助化疗临床意义回顾性分析

目的:了解含铂方案术后辅助化疗对老年非小细胞肺癌患者生存期的影响.方法:回顾性分析2001-01-2004-12上海户籍≥65岁的老年非小细胞肺癌手术患者314例.分为年轻老年人(65～＜70岁)、中等老年人(70～＜75岁)、高龄老年人(≥75岁)3组.结果:术后愿意接受辅助化疗的患者仅29.9%.接受辅助化疗与未接受化疗者相比,未明显延长生存期(P=0.636 5),中位生存期分别为(39.4±8.39)和(25.70±6.83)个月.其中61.7%患者能完成3/4个周期,完成≥3个周期者比未能完成者有显著的生存获益(P=0.033 6),中位生存期分别为(86.60±26.99)和(23.40±6.01)个月,降低死亡风险(P=0.002,HR=0.806).经Cox多因素分析,年龄不是影响生存的主要因素,而病理分期及含铂方案术后辅助化疗(≥3个周期)是影响生存的主要因素.结论:老年非小细胞肺癌患者术后能接受≥3个周期化疗者可明显延长生存期,降低死亡风险.高龄患者对含铂方案辅助化疗耐受性较差.     

非小细胞肺癌发生脑转移的高危因素及生存分析

目的 探讨非小细胞肺癌发生脑转移的高危因素及对生存的影响.方法 回顾对比分析150例经病理确诊的ⅡA～Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌患者,其中发生脑转移的100例,未发生脑转移者50例,比较两组之间临床特征及肿瘤特征的差异.结果 (1)单因素分析发现,年轻、非鳞状细胞癌、中央型肺癌、有淋巴结转移、肺内播散、合并其他部位转移及未接受治疗是非小细胞肺癌发生脑转移的可能危险因素;多因素分析发现,年龄与病理类型是非小细胞肺癌发生脑转移的高危因素.(2)性别、民族及肺内病变左右位置不是非小细胞肺癌发生脑转移瘤的危险因素.(3)脑转移组中位生存时间为(6.661±0.573)月,低于非脑转移组的(13.318±0.966)月(P=0.000);脑转移组的6月、12月生存率分别为32.0％、14.7％,明显低于非脑转移组的80.6％和62.4％ (P =0.000).结论 年龄＜60岁、非鳞状细胞癌是非小细胞肺癌发生脑转移的高危因素,中央型肺癌、肺内转移、淋巴结转移、其他部位远处转移及未接受治疗为非小细胞肺癌患者发生脑转移的可能高危因素.脑转移的发生影响非小细胞肺癌患者的预后.     

不可手术的局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者胸部放疗后脑转移特征及危险因素分析

目的 探讨不可手术的局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者胸部放疗后脑转移特征及其危险因素.方法 选取经组织病理学检查或免疫组化检查证实的不可手术的局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者72例.根据患者各项资料,分析不可手术的局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者放疗后脑转移特征,使用多因素Logistic回归分析影响不可手术的局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者放疗后脑转移的危险因素.结果 72例患者中,15例(20.83%)患者出现脑转移,其中腺癌14例,鳞癌1例;单纯脑转移2例,脑转移合并其他部位转移13例.患者出现脑转移的中位时间为8.5个月,1年、3年累积脑转移率分别为16.31%、29.94%.单因素分析结果显示:患者的年龄、吸烟史、CA125、NSE、CEA与局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者胸部放疗后脑转移存在一定关系(P﹤0.05).多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示:年龄﹥60岁、有吸烟史、CA125升高、NSE升高、非鳞状细胞癌是影响局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者胸部放疗后脑转移的危险因素.结论 年龄﹥60岁、有吸烟史、CA125升高、NSE升高、非鳞状细胞癌的局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者胸部放疗后出现脑转移的危险性高.     

非小细胞肺癌患者外周血MAGE-A3基因表达及其与临床病理特征相关性分析

目的:探讨非小细胞肺癌患者外周血黑色素瘤相关抗原（MAGE-A）3基因表达及其与临床病理特征的相关性。方法:选择2014年01月至2014年12月在我院就诊的137例非小细胞肺癌患者作为观察组,取同期在我院健康体检者57例作为对照组,采用RT-PCR检测受试者外周血MAGE-A3基因表达水平。分析非小细胞肺癌患者MAGE-A3表达与临床病理特征的相关性。结果:观察组MAGE-A3基因阳性率显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。MAGE-A3基因表达与非小细胞肺癌患者性别、年龄、吸烟、病理类型均无相关性（P＞0.05）;低分化非小细胞肺癌患者MAGE-A3基因表达高于中高分化,Ⅲ-Ⅳ期患者表达高于Ⅰ-Ⅱ期,肿瘤≥5 cm患者表达高于＜5 cm患者,淋巴结转移患者表达高于非转移患者,远处转移患者高于非转移患者,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论:MAGE-A3基因在非小细胞肺癌患者外周血中阳性率升高,在晚期和转移患者中表达高于早期肺癌,有成为新的肿瘤预后判定指标的潜力。     

非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者放疗后的生存状况及预后分析

目的：探讨非小细胞肺癌脑转移放疗后生存状况及预后的相关因素。方法：回顾性分析本院2004年9月-2007年12月58例非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者的临床资料,Kaplan Meier法进行生存率统计,并进行Log-rank时序检验,利用比例风险模型（Cox模型）进行多因素分析,筛选相关因素。结果：非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者放疗后的1年生存率为37.9%,2年生存率13.8%。单因素分析结果显示,患者的KPS评分、脑转移数目、有无颅外转移、原发病灶控制情况及放疗方法对生存期有影响（P〈0.05）,多因素分析显示,KPS评分、脑转移灶数目是预后的独立因素（P〈0.05）。结论：患者的KPS评分、脑转移灶数目、原发病灶控制情况、有无颅外转移及放疗方式是非小细胞肺癌脑转移的预后因素。KPS≥70分,脑转移灶为单发是肺癌脑转移患者良好的独立预后因素,这些患者的生存期较长,是潜在的治疗获益者。     

非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者放疗后的生存状况及预后分析

目的:探讨非小细胞肺癌脑转移放疗后生存状况及预后的相关因素。方法:回顾性分析本院2004年9月-2007年12月58例非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者的临床资料,Kaplan Meier法进行生存率统计,并进行Log-rank时序检验,利用比例风险模型(Cox模型)进行多因素分析,筛选相关因素。结果:非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者放疗后的1年生存率为37.9%,2年生存率13.8%。单因素分析结果显示,患者的KPS评分、脑转移数目、有无颅外转移、原发病灶控制情况及放疗方法对生存期有影响(P<0.05),多因素分析显示,KPS评分、脑转移灶数目是预后的独立因素(P<0.05)。结论:患者的KPS评分、脑转移灶数目、原发病灶控制情况、有无颅外转移及放疗方式是非小细胞肺癌脑转移的预后因素。KPS≥70分,脑转移灶为单发是肺癌脑转移患者良好的独立预后因素,这些患者的生存期较长,是潜在的治疗获益者。     

吉非替尼联合全脑放疗治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移的疗效分析

目的 采用吉非替尼联合全脑放疗治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者,分析其治疗效果.方法 选取非小细胞肺癌发生脑转移的患者,实验组患者行吉非替尼联合全脑放疗,对照组仅进行全脑放疗,于治疗前、放疗结束、放疗结束后3个月行头MRI、胸部CT明确肿瘤情况,进行疗效评价,比较其生活质量评分(KPS)、中位生存时间、1年生存率、不良反应.结果 实验组完全缓解(CR)5例,部分缓解(PR) 18例,稳定(SD)6例,进展(PD)1例,有效率(RR)为76.7％,疾病控制率(DCR)为96.7％,高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);治疗后实验组KPS评分达(74.5±7.1)分,KPS≥10分占63.3％,中位生存时间为12.2个月,1年生存率为43.3％,均明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).2组患者均出现皮疹、恶心、呕吐、腹泻、白细胞下降、转氨酶升高、骨髓抑制等不良反应,实验组的皮疹、恶心、呕吐、骨髓抑制发生率与对照组比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).实验组1个月生存率93.3％,3个月生存率76.7％,6个月生存率66.7％,1年生存率50.0％,均明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 吉非替尼联合全脑放疗治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者能够明显提高治疗效果,提高患者的生活质量及生存质量,延长生存期,提高生存率,且不良反应较少.     

全脑放疗与联合立体定向外科治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移60例

[目的]探讨全脑放疗加立体定向放射外科(SRS)补量对非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)脑转移的疗效。[方法]60例非小细胞肺癌脑转移病例,34例接受了单纯全脑放疗(30Gy/10次～39Gy/13次),26例采用全脑放疗(30Gy/10次)加SRS,周边剂量10Gy～24Gy。[结果]非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者采用全脑放疗加SRS治疗与仅单纯全脑放疗,中位生存时间分别为8.0个月和6.0个月(P=0.041)。多发脑转移患者两种治疗方法,中位生存时间分别为8.0个月和5.6个月(P=0.021)。年龄<65岁患者两种治疗方法中位生存时间分别为9.6个月和5.8个月(P=0.033)。确诊NSCLC治疗后发生脑转移者两种治疗患者中位生存时间分别为10个月和6.9个月(P=0.007)。[结论]非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者采用全脑放疗加SRS可以延长生存时间。     

133例非小细胞肺癌脑转移的综合治疗分析

目的：通过回顾性分析探讨影响非小细胞肺癌脑转移治疗效果的预后因素。方法：对133例非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者进行以全脑射治疗为主结合其他方法的治疗。脑转移症状缓解定义为脑部放射治疗结束后1个月，50％以上的症状和体征消失。将脑转移时原发灶控制与否，脑外转移灶，单发或多发脑转移，化疗周期等因素进行多因素分析。结果：所有患者经放射治疗后脑转移灶症状缓解率达88％，缓解期为1．5－55．0个月，中位缓解期为6个月；全脑放射治疗后CT或MRI显示脑转移灶局部控制率为83％；全组中位生存期为6个月，1、2年生存率分别为24．5％和7．8％，经多因素分析显示生存率与多发脑转移，原发灶未控呈负相关，而与化疗3周期以上呈正相关，结论：影响非小细胞肺癌脑转移的主要因素是脑转移时原发灶控制与否，多发或单发脑转移，化疗周期数，对于单发脑转移，脑转移时原发灶控制以及身体条件能够耐受3周期以上化疗的患者，应采取积极的治疗。     

不再望而却步老年肺癌治疗新观念

肺癌分非小细胞肺癌与小细胞肺癌,其中85%为非小细胞肺癌,65岁以上病人占非小细胞肺癌患者的50%。约30%的非小细胞肺癌和25%的小细胞肺癌患者在70岁以上,被称为老年肺癌。由于老年肺癌病人年龄大,体质相对弱,伴随慢性病多,包括心脏、肺、肾脏、肝脏、骨髓功能差,其治疗与年轻患者存在差异。早期非小细胞肺癌老年病人可以做手术者相对较少,不能接受手术的患者应考虑接受根治性放疗。对于应手术/放疗后辅助化疗的患者,要消除恐惧积极进行,医生会根据患者具体情况而选择治疗方案。如对于少数70～75岁体质及主要器官功能良好者会考虑给予标准含铂的双药联合化     

288例非小细胞肺癌脑转移全脑放射治疗的预后因素分析

[目的]分析影响接受全脑放射治疗的非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者的预后因素;对比评估RPA和GPA两种预后指数对临床及研究的指导意义。[方法]回顾性分析2006年1月～2008年8月在我科接受全脑放射治疗的288例非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者的临床资料,以Kaplan—Meier法计算生存率．采用多因素Cox回归法分析影响生存预后的各种因素。根据RPA和GPA两种预后指数分别建立预后模型,并分析模型中各亚组生存曲线的差异,各亚组生存率差异的比较采用Log-Rank检验。[结果]各组患者随访时间为1-33个月,其中接受全脑放射治疗后的中位生存期为8个月（95％CI：7．07～8．92个月）。多因素分析显示放射治疗前的KPS评分、原发肿瘤控制情况、年龄、脑转移灶数目、颅外转移情况、分子靶向药物治疗情况是影响生存率的独立预后因素。根据RPA和GPA指数建立的预后模型,各亚组生存曲线的差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．001）。[结论]KPS评分、原发肿瘤控制情况、年龄、脑转移灶数目、颅外转移情况、分子靶向药物治疗情况是影响非小细胞肺癌脑转移全脑放射治疗生存率的独立预后因素．RPA和GPA两种预后指数模型均能较好地反映预后。     

Prognostic factors derived from recursive partition analysis (RPA) of radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trials applied to surgically resected and irradiated brain metastatic cases

Purpose: (a) To identify the prognostic factors that determine survival after surgical resection and irradiation of tumors metastatic to brain. (b) To determine if the prognostic factors used in the recursive partition analysis (RPA) of brain metastases cases from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) studies into three distinct survival classes is applicable to surgically resected and irradiated patients.Method: The medical records of 125 patients who had surgical resection and radiotherapy for brain metastases from 1985 to 1997 were reviewed. The patients’ disease and treatment related factors were analyzed to identify factors that independently determine survival after diagnosis of brain metastasis. The patients were also grouped into three classes using the RPA-derived prognostic parameters which are: age, performance status, state of the primary disease, and presence or absence of extracranial metastases. Class 1: patients ≤ 65 years of age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of ≥70, with controlled primary disease and no extracranial metastases; Class 3: patients with KPS < 70. Patients who do not qualify for Class 1 or 3 are grouped as Class 2. The survival of these patients was determined from the time of diagnosis of brain metastases to the time of death.Results: The median survival of the entire group was 9.5 months. The three classes of patients as grouped had median survivals of 14.8, 9.9, and 6.0 months respectively (p = 0.0002). Age of < 65 years, KPS of ≥ 70, controlled primary disease, absence of extracranial metastases, complete surgical resection of the brain lesion(s) were found to be independent prognostic factors for survival; the total dose of radiation was not.Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the patients and disease characteristics have significant impact on the survival of patients with brain metastases treated with a combination of surgical resection and radiotherapy. These parameters could be used in selecting patients who would benefit most from such treatment.     

Chemotherapy is the cornerstone of the combined surgical treatment of lung cancer with synchronous brain metastases

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer accounts for about 50% of brain metastases, of which nearly 25% are eligible for neurosurgery, providing a neurological control rate of up to 70% when followed by whole brain radiation therapy. How to manage the primary lung carcinoma remains elusive. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for synchronous brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer in a single institution, to determine overall survival and prognostic factors, with particular attention to the treatment of the primary lung tumor. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent surgical resection of synchronous brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. Median survival was 13.2 months. Prognosis mainly depended of the treatment of the lung tumor, with a marked survival advantage in the 29 patients receiving a focal treatment (thoracic surgery or radiotherapy), compared to the 22 other patients: median, 1-year, and 2-year survival were 22.5 months, 69%, and 42%, versus 7.1 months, 33%, and 5%, respectively (p<0.001); response to pre-operative chemotherapy before focal treatment was the main favorable prognostic factor (p=0.023), and further identified patients who had benefit from resection of the lung tumor, with a significantly better outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy, by its therapeutic and prognostic value, may be considered as the cornerstone of the combined medical and surgical therapeutic sequence whereby brain metastasectomy is followed by chemotherapy and further focal treatment of the primary lung tumor in responders to chemotherapy.     

单纯放疗和综合放化疗治疗老年局部晚期非小细胞肺癌

[目的]评价老年局部晚期非小细胞肺癌接受放疗和放化疗综合治疗结果。[方法]分析1999年1月～2004年12月中国医学科学院肿瘤医院收治的105例年龄≥70岁接受放疗和放化综合治疗的老年局部晚期非小细胞肺癌患者。病理分型鳞癌65例,腺癌24例,大细胞癌5例,其他类型11例（分类不明癌）;分期ⅢA43例、ⅢB62例;治疗方法：单纯放疗70例,综合治疗35例,其中同步放化疗7例,序贯化放疗28例。中位放疗剂量60Gy（34～74Gy）。[结果]存活病人中位随访17.4个月,中位生存时间为17.1个月,1年生存率65.8%,3年生存率19.8%,5年生存率15.0%。全组72例（68.6%）出现复发转移,其中胸内复发31例（29.5%）,远地转移34例（32.4%）,7例（6.7%）出现胸内复发及远地转移。单因素分析显示治疗前卡氏评分和放疗剂量显著影响预后。15例（14.3%）患者出现NCICTC≥3级放射性肺炎。放化疗综合治疗组血液毒性反应明显高于单纯放疗组（53.3%vs.7.1%,χ^2=27.0,P〈0.001）[结论]老年（≥70岁）局部晚期非小细胞肺癌放射治疗和放化疗综合治疗可获得较好的临床治疗效果,治疗前卡氏评分和放疗剂量与预后有关。     

Two radiation regimens and prognostic factors for brain metastases in nonsmall cell lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND: Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases usually receive whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Most of these patients survive for only a few months. A short course of WBRT would be preferable to longer regimens if it could provide similar survival. This retrospective study of NSCLC patients compared longer treatment programs with short-course WBRT with 5 x 4 Gy given during 5 days. METHODS: Data from 404 NSCLC patients treated with WBRT for brain metastases were retrospectively analyzed. The 140 patients who received 5 x 4 Gy given in 5 days were compared for survival with 264 patients who received either 10 x 3 Gy given in 2 weeks or 20 x 2 Gy given in 4 weeks. Seven further potential prognostic factors were investigated for survival including age, sex, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), number of brain metastases, extracranial metastases, interval from tumor diagnosis to WBRT, and RPA (recursive partitioning analysis) class. RESULTS: The WBRT regimen was not associated with survival (P = .55). On multivariate analysis, age < 60 years (vs > or =60 years, P = .020), KPS > or =70 (vs KPS < 70, P < .001), interval from tumor diagnosis to WBRT > 12 months (vs < or =12 months, P = .007), no extracranial metastases (P < .001), and RPA class 1 (vs RPA class 2 vs RPA class 3, P = .007) were significantly associated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: Short-course WBRT with 5 x 4 Gy appeared preferable for most NSCLC patients, as it was associated with survival similar to longer WBRT programs, and the short course was less time consuming.     

吉非替尼与厄洛替尼治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移的Meta分析

目的:比较吉非替尼与厄洛替尼治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移的疗效与安全性.方法:计算机检索pubmed、embaes、中国期刊网全文数据库(CNKI)、万方医学网等数据库,收集吉非替尼与厄洛替尼治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移的随机对照实验(randomized controlled trial,RCT),用Revman5.3软件进行Meta分析.结果:本文纳入的6个研究中共405名患者,Meta分析显示,在疗效方面,吉非替尼与厄洛替尼有效率、疾病控制率比较无统计学差异(P>0.05);在不良反应方面,厄洛替尼皮疹、恶心呕吐、肝功能损害的发生率均高于吉非替尼(P<0.05).结论:非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者应用吉非替尼和厄洛替尼靶向治疗效果相当,但吉非替尼的不良反应发生率低.     

43例寡转移NSCLC立体定向放疗结果分析

目的 探讨应用立体定向放疗技术对寡转移NSCLC患者胸内原发灶及所有转移灶行根治性放疗的疗效和不良反应。方法 回顾分析2009—2015年间我科初治转移灶≤5个的NSCLC患者43例,采用立体定向放疗技术,对其原发灶及所有转移灶均行根治性放疗,平均和中位BED₁₀分别为101.416 Gy和102.700 Gy,中位化疗周期数4个。采用Kaplan-Meier法生存分析,Cox模型多因素预后分析。结果 中位随访时间36个月,病灶治疗总有效率为86%,1、2、3年OS分别为74%、70%、51%,中位OS时间为48个月,中位PFS时间为15个月。多因素分析结果提示ECOG<2与ECOG≥2(P=0.000)、BED₁₀<100 Gy与≥100 Gy (P=0.006)对生存预后有显著影响。约90%患者仅出1—2级不良反应,未出现治疗相关性死亡。结论 寡转移NSCLC在接受系统性全身治疗前提下联合原发灶和转移灶根治性放疗可显著改善患者OS和PFS,不良反应可耐受。     

Prognostic factors in brain metastases: should patients be selected for aggressive treatment according to recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classes?

PURPOSE: To determine whether or not Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) derived prognostic classes for patients with brain metastases are generally applicable and can be recommended as rational strategy for patient selection for future clinical trials. Inclusion of time to non-CNS death as additional endpoint besides death from any cause might result in further valuable information, as survival limitation due to uncontrolled extracranial disease can be explored. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prognostic factors for survival and time to non-CNS death in 528 patients treated at a single institution with radiotherapy or surgery plus radiotherapy for brain metastases. For this purpose, patients were divided into groups with Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <70% and KPS > or =70%, as proposed by the RTOG. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 2.9 months (2.0 months for patients with KPS <70% and 3.6 months for patients with KPS > or =70%, p < 0.001). We did not find other variables splitting patients with KPS <70% in different prognostic groups. However, advanced age, multiple brain metastases, presence of extracranial metastases, and uncontrolled primary tumor each predicted shorter survival in patients with KPS > or =70%. When grouped into the original RTOG RPA classes, our data set split into three subgroups with different prognosis and median survival times of 10.5, 3.5, and 2 months, respectively (p < 0.05). Only 3% of patients fell into the most favorable group. Median time to non-CNS death was 4.1 months (12.9 months in RPA class I, 4.9 months in RPA class II, and 3.8 months in RPA class III, respectively, p > 0.05 for RPA class II versus III). However, it was 8.5 months in RPA class II patients with controlled primary tumor, which was found to be the only prognostic factor for time to non-CNS death in patients with KPS > or =70%. In patients with KPS <70%, no statistically significant prognostic factors were identified for this endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some differences, this analysis essentially confirmed the value of RPA-derived prognostic classes, as published by the RTOG, when survival was chosen as endpoint. RPA class I patients seem to be most likely to profit from aggressive treatment strategies and should be included in appropriate clinical trials. However, their number appears to be very limited. Considering time to non-CNS death, our results suggest that certain patients in RPA class II also might benefit from increased local control of brain metastases.     

A Phase II Trial of Temozolomide for Patients with Recurrent or Progressive Brain Metastases

Background: Treatment options for patients with recurrent brain metastases are extremely limited. This study was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent or progressive brain metastases. Patients and methods: Forty-one patients (11 men, 30 women) with a median KPS of 80 were treated with temozolomide 150mg/m²/day (200mg/m²/day if no prior chemotherapy) for 5 days; treatment cycles were repeated every 28 days. Primary tumor types included 22 non-small cell lung, 10 breast, three melanoma, two small cell lung, two rectal, one ovarian and one endometrial cancer. Results: There were five episodes of grade 3 thrombocytopenia and one grade 4 leukopenia. Significant non-hematologic toxicity possibly related to temozolomide included pneumonitis [2], constipation [1], and elevated liver enzymes [2]. Thirty-four patients were assessed for radiographic response; two had a partial response, 15 stable disease and 17 progressed. Both objective responses were seen in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Overall median survival was 6.6 months. Conclusions: Single agent temozolomide achieved disease control (PR or SD) in 41% of patients with recurrent brain metastases from a variety of primary malignancies with minimal toxicity. Therefore, temozolomide may be a reasonable treatment option for some patients with recurrent brain metastases.