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.

Disentangling the therapeutic tactics in GBM: From bench to bedside and beyond

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is one of the most common and malignant form of adult brain tumor with a high mortality rate and dismal prognosis. The present standard treatment comprising surgical resection followed by radiation and chemotherapy using temozolomide can broaden patient's survival to some extent. However, the advantages are not palliative due to the development of resistance to the drug and tumor recurrence following the multimodal treatment approaches due to both intra- and intertumoral heterogeneity of GBM. One of the major contributors to temozolomide resistance is O⁶ -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase. Furthermore, deficiency of mismatch repair, base excision repair, and cytoprotective autophagy adds to temozolomide obstruction. Rising proof additionally showed that a small population of cells displaying certain stem cell markers, known as glioma stem cells, adds on to the resistance and tumor progression. Collectively, these findings necessitate the discovery of novel therapeutic avenues for treating glioblastoma. As of late, after understanding the pathophysiology and biology of GBM, some novel therapeutic discoveries, such as drug repurposing, targeted molecules, immunotherapies, antimitotic therapies, and microRNAs, have been developed as new potential treatments for glioblastoma. To help illustrate, "what are the mechanisms of resistance to temozolomide" and "what kind of alternative therapeutics can be suggested" with this fatal disease, a detailed history of these has been discussed in this review article, all with a hope to develop an effective treatment strategy for GBM.

Nivolumab for patients with recurrent glioblastoma progressing on bevacizumab: a retrospective case series

A single institution retrospective evaluation of nivolumab following disease progression on bevacizumab in adults with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) with an objective of determining progression free survival (PFS). There is no accepted therapy for recurrent GBM after failure of bevacizumab. 16 adults, ages 52-72 years (median 62), with recurrent GBM were treated. All patients had previously been treated with surgery, concurrent radiotherapy and temozolomide, and post-radiotherapy temozolomide. Bevacizumab (with or without lomustine) was administered to all patients at first recurrence. Patients were treated with nivolumab only (3 mg/kg) once every 2 weeks at second recurrence. One cycle of nivolumab was defined as 2 treatments. Neurological evaluation was performed bi-weekly and neuroradiographic assessment every 4 weeks. A total of 37 treatment cycles (median 2) were administered of nivolumab in which there were 14 Grade 2 adverse events (AEs) and Grade 3 AEs in two patients. No Grade 4 or 5 AEs were seen. Following 1 month of nivolumab, seven patients demonstrated progressive disease and discontinued therapy. No patient demonstrated a response though nine patients demonstrated neuroradiographic stable response. Survival in the entire cohort ranged from 2 to 6 months with a median of 3.5 months (CI 2.8, 4.2). Median and 6-month PFS at 6 months was 2.0 months (range 1-5 months; CI 1.3, 2.7) and 0% respectively. Nivolumab salvage therapy demonstrated no survival advantage in patients with recurrent bevacizumab refractory GBM emphasizing a continued unmet need in neuro-oncology.

Alisertib demonstrates significant antitumor activity in bevacizumab resistant, patient derived orthotopic models of glioblastoma

Aurora A kinase (AURKA), a member of the serine/threonine kinase family, plays a critical role in cell division, and it is widely overexpressed in a variety of tumors including glioblastoma (GBM). Alisertib (MLN8237) is an orally administered selective AURKA inhibitor with potent antiproliferative activity, currently undergoing clinical testing in different tumor types. In vitro evaluation of alisertib against the primary GBM lines, GBM6, GBM10, GBM12 and GBM39 showed significant antitumor activity with IC_50s ranging between 30 and 95 nM. Orthotopic xenografts of GBM10 and the bevacizumab resistant lines GBM6 and GBM39 were established by implantating 3 × 10⁵ cells in the caudate nucleus of nude mice; animals were randomized to treatment with either alisertib 30 mg/kg/day or vehicle. In all three models, treatment with alisertib resulted in a statistically significant prolongation of survival (p < 0.0001). In addition, alisertib administration in these mice decreased phosphorylated aurora-A, induced mitotic arrest and significantly decreased histone H3 phosphorylation in tumors. In conclusion, alisertib displays significant antitumor activity against primary GBM lines and xenografts, including patient derived GBM lines resistant to bevacizumab; these data support clinical translation in GBM.

Pharmacotherapies for the treatment of glioblastoma - current evidence and perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Glioblastoma, the most common malignant brain tumor, exhibits a poor prognosis with little therapeutic progress in the last decade. Novel treatment strategies beyond the established standard of care with temozolomide-based radiotherapy are urgently needed.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the literature on glioblastoma with a focus on phase III trials for pharmacotherapies and/or innovative concepts until December 2015.

EXPERT OPINION

In the last decade, phase III trials on novel compounds largely failed to introduce efficacious pharmacotherapies beyond temozolomide in glioblastoma. So far, inhibition of angiogenesis by compounds such as bevacizumab, cediranib, enzastaurin or cilengitide as well as alternative dosing schedules of temozolomide did not prolong survival, neither at primary diagnosis nor at recurrent disease. Promising strategies of pharmacotherapy currently under evaluation represent targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with biomarker-stratified patient populations and immunotherapeutic concepts including checkpoint inhibition and vaccination. The clinical role of the medical device delivering 'tumor-treating fields' in newly diagnosed glioblastoma which prolonged overall survival in a phase III study has remained controversial. After failure of several phase III trials with previously promising agents, improvement of concepts and novel compounds are urgently needed to expand the still limited therapeutic options for the treatment of glioblastoma.

Therapeutic options in recurrent glioblastoma--An update

INTRODUCTION

Standards of care are not yet defined in recurrent glioblastoma.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on clinical trials for recurrent glioblastoma available in PubMed and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstracts until June 2015.

RESULTS

Evidence is limited due to the paucity of randomized controlled studies. Second surgery or re-irradiation are options for selected patients. Alkylating chemotherapy such as nitrosoureas or temozolomide and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody, bevacizumab, exhibit comparable single agent activity. Phase III data exploring the benefit of combining bevacizumab and lomustine are emerging. Novel approaches in the fields of targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and tumor metabolism are coming forward. Several biomarkers are being explored, but, except for O(6)-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation, none has assumed a role in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Proper patient selection, development of predictive biomarkers and randomized controlled studies are required to develop evidence-based concepts for recurrent glioblastoma.

Neuro-oncology: a selected review of ASCO 2015 abstracts Chicago, IL, USA, 29 May–2 June 2015

ASCO, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, is the largest clinical oncology meeting that meets annually in the USA and is a venue at which new cancer clinical trials and research data are presented. The ASCO 2015 CNS tumors section comprising 3 days of posters and oral presentations and over 70 abstracts provides a contemporary summary of neuro-oncology including metastatic diseases of the CNS as well as primary brain tumors. This brief review selectively highlights presentations from this meeting in an organizational manner that reflects clinically relevant aspects of a large and multifaceted meeting.