Continuing or ceasing bevacizumab beyond progression in recurrent glioblastoma: an exploratory randomized phase II trial

Treatment mechanism and research progress of bevacizumab for glioblastoma

Hypervascularization is a notable pathological hallmark of glioblastoma (GBM). Bevacizumab (Bev) remains the sole antiangiogenic agent approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for GBM treatment. The approval for this indication was supported by several phase II studies demonstrating that Bev significantly improved progression-free survival and the best imaging response in patients with recurrent GBM. Three large phase III randomized controlled trials reported that Bev did not significantly extend overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, Bev has been shown to delay the deterioration of patients' quality of life by postponing tumor progression. This review synthesizes findings from recent investigations exploring Bev in combination with targeted therapies, immunotherapy, or reirradiation. Additionally, this review discusses dosing regimens, administration, treatment failure patterns, third-line therapeutic applications, and prognostic markers of Bev. By synthesizing current evidence, this review aims to inform clinical decision-making for neuro-oncology clinicians.

Review of Novel Surgical, Radiation, and Systemic Therapies and Clinical Trials in Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults. Despite an established standard of care including surgical resection, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, GBM unfortunately is associated with a dismal prognosis. Therefore, researchers are extensively evaluating avenues to expand GBM therapy and improve outcomes in patients with GBM. In this review, we provide a broad overview of novel GBM therapies that have recently completed or are actively undergoing study in clinical trials. These therapies expand across medical, surgical, and radiation clinical trials. We additionally review methods for improving clinical trial design in GBM.

Re-irradiation combined with bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma beyond bevacizumab failure: survival outcomes and prognostic factors

The combination of re-irradiation and bevacizumab has emerged as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients experiencing their first glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) recurrence. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the re-irradiation and bevacizumab combination in treating second-progression GBM patients who are resistant to bevacizumab monotherapy. This retrospective study enrolled 64 patients who developed a second progression after single-agent bevacizumab therapy. The patients were divided into two groups: 35 underwent best supportive care (none-ReRT group), and 29 received bevacizumab and re-irradiation (ReRT group). The study measured the overall survival time after bevacizumab failure (OST-BF) and re-irradiation (OST-RT). Statistical tests were used to compare categorical variables, evaluate the difference in recurrence patterns between the two groups, and identify optimal cutoff points for re-irradiation volume. The results of the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated that the re-irradiation (ReRT) group experienced a significantly higher survival rate and longer median survival time than the non-ReRT group. The median OST-BF and OST-RT were 14.5 months and 8.8 months, respectively, for the ReRT group, while the OST-BF for the none-ReRT group was 3.9 months (p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis identified the re-irradiation target volume as a significant factor for OST-RT. Moreover, the re-irradiation target volume exhibited excellent discriminatory ability in the area under the curve (AUC) analysis, with an optimal cutoff point of greater than 27.58 ml. These findings suggest that incorporating re-irradiation with bevacizumab therapy may be a promising treatment strategy for patients with recurrent GBM resistant to bevacizumab monotherapy. The re-irradiation target volume may serve as a valuable selection factor in determining which patients with recurrent GBM are likely to benefit from the combined re-irradiation and bevacizumab treatment modality.

Use of Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMARTs) in oncology: systematic review of published studies

Sequential multiple assignments randomized trials (SMARTs) are a type of experimental design where patients may be randomised multiple times according to pre-specified decision rules. The present work investigates the state-of-the-art of SMART designs in oncology, focusing on the discrepancy between the available methodological approaches in the statistical literature and the procedures applied within cancer clinical trials. A systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for protocols or reports of results of SMART designs and registrations of SMART designs in clinical trial registries applied to solid tumour research. After title/abstract and full-text screening, 33 records were included. Fifteen were reports of trials' results, four were trials' protocols and fourteen were trials' registrations. The study design was defined as SMART by only one out of fifteen trial reports. Conversely, 13 of 18 study protocols and trial registrations defined the study design SMART. Furthermore, most of the records considered each stage separately in the analysis, without considering treatment regimens embedded in the trial. SMART designs in oncology are still limited. Study powering and analysis is mainly based on statistical approaches traditionally used in single-stage parallel trial designs. Formal reporting guidelines for SMART designs are needed.

Bevacizumab beyond Progression for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma (BIOMARK): Phase II Safety, Efficacy and Biomarker Study

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab beyond progression (BBP) in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and explored predictors of response to bevacizumab. This phase II study evaluated a protocol-defined primary therapy by radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide plus bevacizumab, followed by bevacizumab monotherapy, and secondary therapy (BBP: bevacizumab upon progression). Ninety patients received the protocol-defined primary therapy (BBP group, n = 25). Median overall survival (mOS) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) were 25.0 and 14.9 months, respectively. In the BBP group, in which O⁶-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT)-unmethylated tumors predominated, mOS and mPFS were 5.8 and 1.9 months from BBP initiation and 16.8 and 11.4 months from the initial diagnosis, respectively. The primary endpoint, the 2-year survival rate of the BBP group, was 27.0% and was unmet. No unexpected adverse events occurred. Expression profiling using RNA sequencing identified that Cluster 2, which was enriched with the genes involved in macrophage or microglia activation, was associated with longer OS and PFS independent of the MGMT methylation status. Cluster 2 was identified as a significantly favorable independent predictor for PFS, along with younger age and methylated MGMT. The novel expression classifier may predict the prognosis of glioblastoma patients treated with bevacizumab.

Current and promising treatment strategies in glioma

Gliomas are the most common primary central nervous system tumors; despite recent advances in diagnosis and treatment, glioma patients generally have a poor prognosis. Hence there is a clear need for improved therapeutic options. In recent years, significant effort has been made to investigate immunotherapy and precision oncology approaches. The review covers well-established strategies such as surgery, temozolomide, PCV, and mTOR inhibitors. Furthermore, it summarizes promising therapies: tumor treating fields, immune therapies, tyrosine kinases inhibitors, IDH(Isocitrate dehydrogenase)-targeted approaches, and others. While there are many promising treatment strategies, none fundamentally changed the management of glioma patients. However, we are still awaiting the outcome of ongoing trials, which have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of glioma.

Redo craniotomy or bevacizumab for symptomatic steroid-refractory true or pseudoprogression following IMRT for glioblastoma

Background

There is minimal evidence to support decision making for symptomatic steroid-refractory pseudoprogression or true progression occurring after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for glioblastoma (GBM). This study audited the survival outcome of patients managed with redo craniotomy (RedoSx) or bevacizumab (BEV) for steroid-refractory mass effect after IMRT for GBM.

Methods

Patients with GBM managed between 2008 and 2019 with the EORTC-NCIC Protocol were entered into a prospective database. Patients with symptomatic steroid-refractory mass effect within 6 months of IMRT managed with either RedoSx or BEV were identified for analysis. For the primary endpoint of median overall survival (OS) postintervention, outcome was analyzed in regards to potential prognostic factors, and differences between groups were assessed by log-rank analyses.

Results

Of the 399 patients managed with the EORTC-NCIC Protocol, 78 required an intervention within 6 months of IMRT completion for either true or pseudoprogression (49 with RedoSx and 29 with BEV). Subsequently, 20 of the 43 patients managed with RedoSx when BEV was clinically available, required salvage with BEV within 6 months after RedoSx. Median OS postintervention was 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.84-11.61) for the total group; and 8.7 months (95% CI: 6.8-13.1) for RedoSx and 9.4 months (95% CI: 7.8-13.6) for BEV (P = .38). Subsequent use of BEV in RedoSx patients was not associated with improved survival compared with RedoSx alone (P = .10). Age, time from IMRT, and ECOG performance status were not associated with OS. In the RedoSx patients, immunohistochemical features such as Ki-67% reduction correlated with survival. The presence of pure necrosis and residual tumor cells only had improved survival compared with the presence of gross tumor (P < .001).

Conclusions

At time of symptomatic steroid-refractory true or pseudoprogression following IMRT for GBM, BEV was equivalent to RedoSx in terms of OS. Pseudoprogression with residual cells at RedoSx was not associated with worse outcome compared to pure necrosis.

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy of existing treatments for patients with recurrent glioblastoma

Background

Despite advances in the treatment of cancers over the last years, treatment options for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) remain limited with poor outcomes. Many regimens have been investigated in clinical trials; however, there is a lack of knowledge on comparative effectiveness. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of existing treatment strategies and to estimate the relative efficacy of these regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating any treatment regimen in adult patients suffering from rGBM. Connected studies reporting at least one of our primary outcomes were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) estimating relative treatment effects.

Results

Forty RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria evaluating the efficacy of 38 drugs as mono- or combination therapy. Median OS ranged from 2.9 to 18.3 months; median PFS ranged from 0.7 to 6 months. We performed an NMA including 24 treatments that were connected within a large evidence network. Our NMA indicated improvement in PFS with most bevacizumab (BV)-based regimens compared to other regimens. We did not find any differences in OS between treatments.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of existing treatment options for rGBM. The NMA provides relative effects for many of these treatment regimens, which have not been directly compared in RCTs. Overall, outcomes for patients with rGBM remain poor across all treatment options, highlighting the need for innovative treatment options.

EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood

In response to major changes in diagnostic algorithms and the publication of mature results from various large clinical trials, the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) recognized the need to provide updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of adult patients with diffuse gliomas. Through these evidence-based guidelines, a task force of EANO provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of adult patients with diffuse gliomas. The diagnostic component is based on the 2016 update of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System and the subsequent recommendations of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumour Taxonomy — Not Officially WHO (cIMPACT-NOW). With regard to therapy, we formulated recommendations based on the results from the latest practice-changing clinical trials and also provide guidance for neuropathological and neuroradiological assessment. In these guidelines, we define the role of the major treatment modalities of surgery, radiotherapy and systemic pharmacotherapy, covering current advances and cognizant that unnecessary interventions and expenses should be avoided. This document is intended to be a source of reference for professionals involved in the management of adult patients with diffuse gliomas, for patients and caregivers, and for health-care providers.

Herein, the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of adult patients with diffuse gliomas. These evidence-based guidelines incorporate major changes in diagnostic algorithms based on the 2016 update of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System as well as on evidence from recent large clinical trials.

Glioblastoma in adults: a Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and European Society of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) consensus review on current management and future directions

Glioblastomas are the most common form of malignant primary brain tumor and an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years there have been important advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, but this has not translated into significantly improved outcomes for patients. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of isocitrate dehydrogenase wildtype (IDHwt) glioblastomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as targeted molecular therapies, agents targeting DNA damage response and metabolism, immunotherapies, and viral therapies will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

A Randomized Phase II Trial (TAMIGA) Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Bevacizumab Through Multiple Lines of Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma

BACKGROUND

We assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) through multiple lines in patients with recurrent glioblastoma who had progressed after first-line treatment with radiotherapy, temozolomide, and BEV.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

TAMIGA (NCT01860638) was a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in adult patients with glioblastoma. Following surgery, patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma received first-line treatment consisting of radiotherapy plus temozolomide and BEV, followed by six cycles of temozolomide and BEV, then BEV monotherapy until disease progression (PD1). Randomization occurred at PD1 (second line), and patients received lomustine (CCNU) plus BEV (CCNU + BEV) or CCNU plus placebo (CCNU + placebo) until further disease progression (PD2). At PD2 (third line), patients continued BEV or placebo with chemotherapy (investigator's choice). The primary endpoint was survival from randomization. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival in the second and third lines (PFS2 and PFS3) and safety.

RESULTS

Of the 296 patients enrolled, 123 were randomized at PD1 (CCNU + BEV, n = 61; CCNU + placebo, n = 62). The study was terminated prematurely because of the high drop-out rate during first-line treatment, implying underpowered inferential testing. The proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids at randomization was similar (BEV 33%, placebo 31%). For the CCNU + BEV and CCNU + placebo groups, respectively, median survival from randomization was 6.4 versus 5.5 months (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.59), median PFS2 was 2.3 versus 1.8 months (stratified HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00), median PFS3 was 2.0 versus 2.2 months (stratified HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.37-1.33), and median time from randomization to a deterioration in health-related quality of life was 1.4 versus 1.3 months (stratified HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52-1.12). The incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events was 19% (CCNU + BEV) versus 15% (CCNU + placebo).

CONCLUSION

There was no survival benefit and no detriment observed with continuing BEV through multiple lines in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Previous research suggested that there may be value in continuing bevacizumab (BEV) beyond progression through multiple lines of therapy. No survival benefit was observed with the use of BEV through multiple lines in patients with glioblastoma who had progressed after first-line treatment (radiotherapy + temozolomide + BEV). No new safety concerns arose from the use of BEV through multiple lines of therapy.