Safety and efficacy of bevacizumab biosimilar in recurrent/ progressive glioblastoma

Background

Multiple low-cost biosimilars of bevacizumab are now available but their clinical efficacy has never been compared against the original (innovator) molecule in glioblastoma. The aim of the current analysis is to compare the overall survival (OS) in recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients between the biosimilar and innovator molecules.

Materials and methods

Adult recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients treated with bevacizumab from 1 July 2015 to 30 July 2019 were identified. These patients were either offered Bevacizumab innovator (Avastin, Roche) or biosimilar (BevaciRel: Reliance Life sciences or Bryxta: Zydus Oncosciences) depending upon the financial status and affordability of the patients. The primary endpoint of the study was OS, while progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events were the secondary endpoints.

Results

There were 82 patients, out of which 57 received innovator and 25 received biosimilar bevacizumab. At median follow-up of 26 months, the median PFS was 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08 to 5.25) and 3.3 months (95% CI 2.38 to 4.21) in innovator and biosimilar group, respectively (Log-rank test p-value = 0.072). The hazard ratio (HR) for progression was 0.61 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.05; p-value = 0.075). At the time of data cut-off, the median OS was 5.53 (95% CI, 5.07 to 5.99) versus 7.33 months (95% CI, 5.63 to 9.03) in innovator and biosimilar group, respectively (Log-rank test p-value = 0.51). The HR for death was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.67 to 2.17; p-value = 0.51). The adverse events and safety profiles were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

In the recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients, both innovator and biosimilar bevacizumab seem to have similar safety and clinical efficacy.

Phase I/II Study of Palliative Triple Metronomic Chemotherapy in Platinum-Refractory/Early-Failure Oral Cancer

PURPOSE

Platinum-resistant oral cancer has a dismal outcome with limited treatment options. We conducted a phase I/II study to identify the optimal biologic dose (OBD) of methotrexate when given along with erlotinib and celecoxib and to assess the efficacy of this three-drug regimen in advanced oral cancer.

METHODS

Patients with platinum-resistant or early-failure squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity were eligible for this study. They were orally administered erlotinib 150 mg once per day, celecoxib 200 mg twice per day, and methotrexate per week. The primary end point of phase I was to determine the OBD of methotrexate, and that of phase II was to determine the 3-month progression-free survival. The OBD of methotrexate was determined on the basis of the clinical benefit rate at 2 months and circulating endothelial cell level at day 8, using a de-escalation model. Pharmacokinetic evaluation was performed during phase I. Phase II consisted of an expansion cohort of 76 patients.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were recruited in phase I, and 9 mg/m2 methotrexate was identified as the OBD. A total of 91 patients were recruited, and the median follow-up was 6.8 months (range, 0 to 16.8 months). The 3-month progression-free survival rate was 71.1% (95% CI, 60.5% to 79.3%), the 6-month overall survival rate was 61.2% (95% CI, 49.2% to 67.8%), and the response rate was 42.9% (95% CI, 33.2% to 53.1%; n = 39). The mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Trial Outcome Index score at day 8 was improved by 6.1 units (standard deviation, 13.6 units) and was maintained around this magnitude ( P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Triple oral metronomic chemotherapy with erlotinib, methotrexate, and celecoxib is efficacious in platinum-refractory oral cavity cancers and represents a new therapeutic option in patients with poor prognosis.