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.

Radiation Responses of 2D and 3D Glioblastoma Cells: A Novel, 3D-specific Radioprotective Role of VEGF/Akt Signaling through Functional Activation of NHEJ

Glioblastoma is resistant to conventional treatments and has dismal prognosis. Despite promising in vitro data, molecular targeted agents have failed to improve outcomes in patients, indicating that conventional two-dimensional (2D) in vitro models of GBM do not recapitulate the clinical scenario. Responses of primary glioblastoma stem-like cells (GSC) to radiation in combination with EGFR, VEGF, and Akt inhibition were investigated in conventional 2D cultures and a three-dimensional (3D) in vitro model of GBM that recapitulates key GBM clinical features. VEGF deprivation had no effect on radiation responses of 2D GSCs, but enhanced radiosensitivity of GSC cultures in 3D. The opposite effects were observed for EGFR inhibition. Detailed analysis of VEGF and EGF signaling demonstrated a radioprotective role of Akt that correlates with VEGF in 3D and with EGFR in 2D. In all cases, positive correlations were observed between increased radiosensitivity, markers of unrepaired DNA damage and persistent phospho-DNA-PK nuclear foci. Conversely, increased numbers of Rad51 foci were observed in radioresistant populations, indicating a novel role for VEGF/Akt signaling in influencing radiosensitivity by regulating the balance between nonhomologous end-joining and homologous recombination-mediated DNA repair. Differential activation of tyrosine kinase receptors in 2D and 3D models of GBM explains the well documented discrepancy between preclinical and clinical effects of EGFR inhibitors. Data obtained from our 3D model identify novel determinants and mechanisms of DNA repair and radiosensitivity in GBM, and confirm Akt as a promising therapeutic target in this cancer of unmet need.

Anti-angiogenic therapy for high-grade glioma

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in September 2014. The most common primary brain tumours in adults are gliomas. Gliomas span a spectrum from low to high grade and are graded pathologically on a scale of one to four according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification. High-grade glioma (HGG) carries a poor prognosis. Grade IV glioma is known as glioblastoma and carries a median survival in treated patients of about 15 months. Glioblastomas are rich in blood vessels (i.e. highly vascular) and also rich in a protein known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) that promotes new blood vessel formation (the process of angiogenesis). Anti-angiogenic agents inhibit the process of new blood vessel formation and promote regression of existing vessels. Several anti-angiogenic agents have been investigated in clinical trials, both in newly diagnosed and recurrent HGG, showing preliminary promising results. This review was undertaken to report on the benefits and harms associated with the use of anti-angiogenic agents in the treatment of HGGs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of anti-angiogenic therapy in people with high-grade glioma (HGG). The intervention can be used in two broad groups: at first diagnosis as part of 'adjuvant' therapy, or in the setting of recurrent disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted updated searches to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 9), MEDLINE and Embase to October 2018. We handsearched proceedings of relevant oncology conferences up to 2018. We also searched trial registries for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs evaluating the use of anti-angiogenic therapy to treat HGG versus the same therapy without anti-angiogenic therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors screened the search results and reviewed the abstracts of potentially relevant articles before retrieving the full text of eligible articles.

MAIN RESULTS

After a comprehensive literature search, we identified 11 eligible RCTs (3743 participants), of which 7 were included in the original review (2987 participants). There was significant design heterogeneity in the included studies, especially in the response assessment criteria used. All eligible studies were restricted to glioblastomas and there were no eligible studies evaluating other HGGs. Ten studies were available as fully published peer-reviewed manuscripts, and one study was available in abstract form. The overall risk of bias in included studies was low. This risk was based upon low rates of selection bias, detection bias, attrition bias and reporting bias. The 11 studies included in this review did not show an improvement in overall survival with the addition of anti-angiogenic therapy (pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.02; P = 0.16; 11 studies, 3743 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, pooled analysis from 10 studies (3595 participants) showed improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of anti-angiogenic therapy (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.79; P < 0.00001; high-certainty evidence).We carried out additional analyses of overall survival and progression-free survival according to treatment setting and for anti-angiogenic therapy combined with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Pooled analysis of overall survival in either the adjuvant or recurrent setting did not show an improvement (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; P = 0.12; 8 studies, 2833 participants; high-certainty evidence and HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; P = 0.90; 3 studies, 910 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Pooled analysis of overall survival for anti-angiogenic therapy combined with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy also did not clearly show an improvement (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; P = 0.05; 11 studies, 3506 participants; low-certainty evidence). The progression-free survival in the subgroups all showed findings that demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival with the addition of anti-angiogenic therapy. Pooled analysis of progression-free survival in both the adjuvant and recurrent setting showed an improvement (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82; P < 0.00001; 8 studies, 2833 participants; high-certainty evidence and HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 762 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Pooled analysis of progression-free survival for anti-angiogenic therapy combined with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone showed an improvement (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.77; P < 0.00001; 10 studies, 3464 participants). Similar to trials of anti-angiogenic therapies in other solid tumours, adverse events related to this class of therapy included hypertension and proteinuria, poor wound healing, and the potential for thromboembolic events, although generally, the rate of grade 3 and 4 adverse events was low (< 14.1%) and in keeping with the literature. The impact of anti-angiogenic therapy on quality of life varied between studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of anti-angiogenic therapy does not significantly improve overall survival in newly diagnosed people with glioblastoma. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of anti-angiogenic therapy for people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma at this time. Overall there is a lack of evidence of a survival advantage for anti-angiogenic therapy over chemotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma. When considering the combination anti-angiogenic therapy with chemotherapy compared with the same chemotherapy alone, there may possibly be a small improvement in overall survival. While there is strong evidence that bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic drug) prolongs progression-free survival in newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, the impact of this on quality of life and net clinical benefit for patients remains unclear. Not addressed here is whether subsets of people with glioblastoma may benefit from anti-angiogenic therapies, nor their utility in other HGG histologies.