Towards optimizing the sequence of bevacizumab and nitrosoureas in recurrent malignant glioma

Long-term survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab: a multicentric retrospective study

PURPOSE

Recurrence of glioblastoma (GB) occurs in most patients after standard concomitant temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy (CTRC). Bevacizumab (BV), an anti-VEGF antibody, has an effect on progression-free survival (PFS) but not on overall survival (OS). However, a small part of the patients experience a survival, longer than expected. This retrospective study aims to characterize long responder (LR) patients treated with BV for a first or second GBM recurrence.

METHODS

Medical records from patients (814) who received BV for a first or second recurrence of primary glioblastoma between September 2010 and September 2015, and initially treated by CTRC were analyzed. Patients, who had at least a stable disease according to RANO criteria at 12 months from the start of BV, were included. Patients who had, a secondary GB, or received BV in neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting were excluded.

RESULTS

We focused on 65 LR patients without progression 12 months after the first injection of BV (8%). Median PFS was 21.7 months [95% CI (19.3; 27.2)] and median OS was 31.1 months [95% CI (24.3; 37.5)] from the start of BV. No prognostic factor was associated with OS in multivariate analysis. Karnofsky performance status, neurological status and corticosteroid dose were stable at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight that among patients receiving bevacizumab in first or second recurrence, one patient out of twelve could be classified as LR. A median OS of 31.1 months from the start of BV could be expected in this subpopulation. These findings reinforce the potential benefit of the use of BV in the situation of recurrence. 256 words.

A randomized phase II trial of standard dose bevacizumab versus low dose bevacizumab plus lomustine (CCNU) in adults with recurrent glioblastoma

Antiangiogenic therapy can rapidly reduce vascular permeability and cerebral edema but high doses of bevacizumab may induce selective pressure to promote resistance. This trial evaluated the efficacy of low dose bevacizumab in combination with lomustine (CCNU) compared to standard dose bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Patients (N = 71) with recurrent glioblastoma who previously received radiation and temozolomide were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy (10 mg/kg) or low dose bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) in combination with lomustine (90 mg/m(2)). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) based on a blinded, independent radiographic assessment of post-contrast T1-weighted and non-contrast T2/FLAIR weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using RANO criteria. For 69 evaluable patients, median PFS was not significantly longer in the low dose bevacizumab + lomustine arm (4.34 months, CI 2.96-8.34) compared to the bevacizumab alone arm (4.11 months, CI 2.69-5.55, p = 0.19). In patients with first recurrence, there was a trend towards longer median PFS time in the low dose bevacizumab + lomustine arm (4.96 months, CI 4.17-13.44) compared to the bevacizumab alone arm (3.22 months CI 2.5-6.01, p = 0.08). The combination of low dose bevacizumab plus lomustine was not superior to standard dose bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Although the study was not designed to exclusively evaluate patients at first recurrence, a strong trend towards improved PFS was seen in that subgroup for the combination of low dose bevacizumab plus lomustine. Further studies are needed to better identify such subgroups that may most benefit from the combination treatment.

Progression-free and overall survival in patients with recurrent Glioblastoma multiforme treated with last-line bevacizumab versus bevacizumab/lomustine

Bevacizumab (BEV) is widely used for treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). 1-(2-Chlorethyl)-cyclohexyl-nitrosourea (CCNU, lomustine) monotherapy is an approved chemotherapeutical option for recurrent GBM. Recent evidence demonstrated a survival benefit of combined treatment with BEV and CCNU in patients with a first recurrence of GBM. We examined the outcome of recurrent GBM patients with BEV monotherapy versus BEV/CCNU therapy when used as last-line therapy. 35 patients with recurrent GBM treated between 2010 and 2014 were included in this retrospective study. Progression-free and overall survival was determined with reference to the beginning of BEV or BEV/CCNU therapy and initial diagnosis. 17 patients received BEV monotherapy, 18 patients received combined BEV and CCNU therapy. The impact of parameters such as IDH mutation, MGMT promoter methylation, tumor localization, histology and the number of surgeries were included in a multivariate ANOVA analysis. Furthermore, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), neurological function and toxicity were assessed. BEV/CCNU treatment led to an extension of PFS (6.11 months; 95% CL 3.41-12.98 months; log-rank p = 0.00241) and OS (6.59 months; 95% CL 5.51-16.3 months; log-rank p = 0.0238) of 2 months compared to BEV monotherapy. This survival advantage was independent of histology, IDH mutation status or the number of previous surgeries. Neurological function, KPS and toxicity were not significantly different between both treatment groups. Last-line therapy with BEV/CCNU results in a longer PFS and OS compared to BEV monotherapy and is well-tolerated. These findings confirm the role of these agents in the treatment of recurrent GBM and are in line with other studies.

Why post-progression survival and post-relapse survival are not appropriate measures of efficacy in cancer randomized clinical trials

Comparisons of post-relapse survival (PRS) and post-progression survival have been used to measure efficacy in some cancer clinical trials. These comparisons are an attempt to account for second-line therapies and to identify benefits that do not translate in longer overall survival. However, the use of PRS comparisons can be misleading (either a longer or shorter PRS may indicate a benefit, depending on the circumstances) and can result in biased estimates (because of selection). Here, we describe the problems surrounding PRS comparisons and propose alternative approaches to deal with non-randomized therapies administered after progression to the experimental treatment.

The future of high-grade glioma: Where we are and where are we going

High-grade glioma (HGG) are optimally treated with maximum safe surgery, followed by radiotherapy (RT) and/or systemic chemotherapy (CT). Recently, the treatment of newly diagnosed anaplastic glioma (AG) has changed, particularly in patients with 1p19q codeleted tumors. Results of trials currenlty ongoing are likely to determine the best standard of care for patients with noncodeleted AG tumors. Trials in AG illustrate the importance of molecular characterization, which are germane to both prognosis and treatment. In contrast, efforts to improve the current standard of care of newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GB) with, for example, the addition of bevacizumab (BEV), have been largely disappointing and furthermore molecular characterization has not changed therapy except in elderly patients. Novel approaches, such as vaccine-based immunotherapy, for newly diagnosed GB are currently being pursued in multiple clinical trials. Recurrent disease, an event inevitable in nearly all patients with HGG, continues to be a challenge. Both recurrent GB and AG are managed in similar manner and when feasible re-resection is often suggested notwithstanding limited data to suggest benefit from repeat surgery. Occassional patients may be candidates for re-irradiation but again there is a paucity of data to commend this therapy and only a minority of selected patients are eligible for this approach. Consequently systemic therapy continues to be the most often utilized treatment in recurrent HGG. Choice of therapy, however, varies and revolves around re-challenge with temozolomide (TMZ), use of a nitrosourea (most often lomustine; CCNU) or BEV, the most frequently used angiogenic inhibitor. Nevertheless, no clear standard recommendation regarding the prefered agent or combination of agents is avaliable. Prognosis after progression of a HGG remains poor, with an unmet need to improve therapy.

Retrospective study of carmustine or lomustine with bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma patients who have failed prior bevacizumab

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no known effective treatments for recurrent glioblastoma once patients have progressed on a bevacizumab-containing regimen. We examined the efficacy of adding nitrosoureas to bevacizumab in patients who progressed while on an initial bevacizumab-containing regimen.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we identified adult patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma (WHO grade IV) who were treated with lomustine or carmustine in combination with bevacizumab as a second or third regimen after failing an alternative initial bevacizumab-containing regimen. Response rate (RR), 6-month progression free survival (PFS6), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for each treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were identified (28 males) with a median age of 49 years (range, 24-78 y). Of 42 patients, 28 received lomustine (n = 22) or carmustine (n = 6) with bevacizumab as their second bevacizumab-containing regimen, and 14 received lomustine (n = 11) or carmustine (n = 3) as their third bevacizumab-containing regimen. While the median PFS for the initial bevacizumab-containing regimen was 16.3 weeks, the median PFS for the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen was 6.3 weeks. Patients had an RR of 44% and a PFS6 rate of 26% during the initial bevacizumab regimen and an RR of 0% and a PFS6 rate of 3% during the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen. There was increased grade 3-4 toxicity (45% vs 19%, P = .010) during the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen relative to the initial bevacizumab regimen. Median overall survival was 18.7 weeks from initiation of the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen.

CONCLUSION

The addition of lomustine or carmustine to bevacizumab after a patient has already progressed on a bevacizumab-containing regimen does not appear to provide benefit for most patients and is associated with additional toxicity with the doses used in this cohort.