Dataset Information

Tumor-treating fields plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for glioblastoma at first recurrence: a post hoc analysis of the EF-14 trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This post hoc analysis of the EF-14 trial (NCT00916409) of tumor-treating fields (TTFields) plus temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed glioblastoma compared the efficacy of TTFields plus chemotherapy (physician's choice) versus chemotherapy alone after first recurrence. METHODS:Patients on TTFields plus temozolomide continued TTFields plus second-line chemotherapy after first recurrence. Some patients on temozolomide alone crossed over after approval of TTFields for recurrent GBM. The primary efficacy outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS:After disease progression, 131 patients received TTFields plus chemotherapy and 73 chemotherapy alone. Thirteen patients in the original temozolomide-alone group crossed over to receive TTFields plus chemotherapy after disease progression, resulting in 144 patients receiving TTFields plus chemotherapy and 60 chemotherapy alone. Median follow-up was 12.6 months. Bevacizumab, alone or with cytotoxic chemotherapy, was the most frequent treatment. Median OS in the TTFields plus chemotherapy group was significantly longer versus chemotherapy alone (11.8 vs 9.2 months; HR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00; p=0.049). TTFields showed a low toxicity safety profile, as previously reported, with no grade 3/4 device-related adverse events. CONCLUSION:TTFields plus chemotherapy after first disease recurrence on TTFields plus temozolomide or temozolomide alone prolonged OS in patients in the EF-14 trial.

SUBMITTER: Kesari S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6009218 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tumor-treating fields plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for glioblastoma at first recurrence: a post hoc analysis of the EF-14 trial.

Kesari Santosh S Ram Zvi Z

CNS oncology 20170412 3

<h4>Background</h4>This post hoc analysis of the EF-14 trial (NCT00916409) of tumor-treating fields (TTFields) plus temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed glioblastoma compared the efficacy of TTFields plus chemotherapy (physician's choice) versus chemotherapy alone after first recurrence.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients on TTFields plus temozolomide continued TTFields plus second-line chemotherapy after first recurrence. Some patients on temozolomide alone crossed over after approval ...[more]

PMID: 28399638

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstudied elderly patients comprise a large segment of high-risk patients with glioblastoma (GBM) that are challenging to treat. Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) is a locoregional, noninvasive, antimitotic therapy delivering low-intensity, intermediate-frequency alternating electric fields to the tumor. In the phase 3 EF-14 clinical trial, TTFields (200 kHz) improved median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM) when added concomitantly to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ). This EF-14 subgroup analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of TTFields in elderly patients.MethodsAll 134 patients who are ≥65 years of age were included (TTFields/TMZ combination, n=89; TMZ monotherapy, n=45; 2:1 ratio of randomization). PFS and OS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methodology (α=0.05). Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire QLQ-C30 supplemented with the brain tumor module (QLQ-BN20). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (CTCAE) v4.0.ResultsThe PFS was 6.5 months in patients randomized to the treatment group with TTFields/TMZ combination versus 3.9 months in patients treated with TMZ monotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.74; P=0.0236). The OS was 17.4 months in patients treated with TTFields/TMZ combination versus 13.7 months in patients treated with TMZ monotherapy (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.77; P=0.0204). Annual survival rates with TTFields/TMZ versus TMZ monotherapy were 39% (95% CI, 29-50%) versus 27% (95% CI, 15-41%; P=0.072) at 2 years, 19% (95% CI, 11-29%) versus 11% (95% CI, 4-23%; P=0.135) at 3 years, and 15% (95% CI, 7-25%) versus 0% at 5 years, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups in the preselected items of HRQoL assessment. Grade ≥3 systemic AEs were 46% in the TTFields/TMZ group versus 40% in the TMZ monotherapy group, without statistically significant difference between the two groups. The only TTFields-related AEs were reversible scalp skin reactions, with grades 1-2 and grade 3 skin reactions reported by 51% and 2% of patients, respectively.ConclusionsCombining TTFields with maintenance TMZ significantly improved PFS and OS in elderly patients with ndGBM in the phase 3 EF-14 clinical trial, without significant increases in systemic toxicity or negatively affecting patient HRQoL. TTFields-related skin AEs were low-grade and manageable.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00916409, identifier: NCT00916409.

Project description:ImportanceTumor-treating fields (TTFields) is an antimitotic treatment modality that interferes with glioblastoma cell division and organelle assembly by delivering low-intensity alternating electric fields to the tumor.ObjectiveTo investigate whether TTFields improves progression-free and overall survival of patients with glioblastoma, a fatal disease that commonly recurs at the initial tumor site or in the central nervous system.Design, setting, and participantsIn this randomized, open-label trial, 695 patients with glioblastoma whose tumor was resected or biopsied and had completed concomitant radiochemotherapy (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months) were enrolled at 83 centers (July 2009-2014) and followed up through December 2016. A preliminary report from this trial was published in 2015; this report describes the final analysis.InterventionsPatients were randomized 2:1 to TTFields plus maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229). The TTFields, consisting of low-intensity, 200 kHz frequency, alternating electric fields, was delivered (≥ 18 hours/d) via 4 transducer arrays on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable device. Temozolomide was administered to both groups (150-200 mg/m2) for 5 days per 28-day cycle (6-12 cycles).Main outcomes and measuresProgression-free survival (tested at α = .046). The secondary end point was overall survival (tested hierarchically at α = .048). Analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat population. Adverse events were compared by group.ResultsOf the 695 randomized patients (median age, 56 years; IQR, 48-63; 473 men [68%]), 637 (92%) completed the trial. Median progression-free survival from randomization was 6.7 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 4.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < .001). Median overall survival was 20.9 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group vs 16.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76; P < .001). Systemic adverse event frequency was 48% in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 44% in the temozolomide-alone group. Mild to moderate skin toxicity underneath the transducer arrays occurred in 52% of patients who received TTFields-temozolomide vs no patients who received temozolomide alone.Conclusions and relevanceIn the final analysis of this randomized clinical trial of patients with glioblastoma who had received standard radiochemotherapy, the addition of TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy vs maintenance temozolomide alone, resulted in statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival. These results are consistent with the previous interim analysis.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409.

Project description:BackgroundWhether a combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is beneficial for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. This study aimed to summarize the currently available evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for treating advanced NSCLC.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015015).ResultsNine randomized controlled trials with a total of 3599 patients were included. Compared to chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus erlotinib was superior in PFS (HR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], P = 0.006), and no statistically significant difference was observed in OS (HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.86, 1.03], P = 0.16). Intercalated erlotinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated improvements in PFS (HR = 0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.91], P = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98], P = 0.03). Continuous erlotinib plus chemotherapy treatment failed to demonstrate improvements in PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.80, 1.04], P = 0.16) and OS (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.89, 1.09], P = 0.75). The association of chemotherapy plus erlotinib with improvement in PFS was significant in never smoking patients (HR = 0.46 [95% CI 0.37, 0.56], P<0.00001) but not in smoking patients (HR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.49, 1.00], P = 0.05). Among patients with EGFR mutant tumors, chemotherapy plus erlotinib demonstrated significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.31 [95% CI 0.17, 0.58], P = 0.0002) and OS (HR = 0.52 [95% CI 0.30, 0.88], P = 0.01). Among patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, no statistically significant difference was observed with respect to PFS (HR = 0.87 [95% CI 0.70, 1.08], P = 0.21) and OS (HR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.59, 1.01], P = 0.06).ConclusionCombination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable treatment option for patients with NSCLC, especially for patients who never smoked and patients with EGFR mutation-positive disease. In addition, intercalated administration is an effective combinatorial strategy.

Project description:Glioblastoma is the most common yet most lethal of primary brain cancers with a one-year post-diagnosis survival rate of 65% and a five-year survival rate of barely 5%. Recently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a novel fourth approach (in addition to surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy) to treating glioblastoma; namely, tumor treating fields (TTFields). TTFields involves the delivery of alternating electric fields to the tumor but its mechanisms of action are not fully understood. Current theories involve TTFields disrupting mitosis due to interference with proper mitotic spindle assembly. We show that TTFields also alters cellular membrane structure thus rendering it more permeant to chemotherapeutics. Increased membrane permeability through the imposition of TTFields was shown by several approaches. For example, increased permeability was indicated through increased bioluminescence with TTFields exposure or with the increased binding and ingress of membrane-associating reagents such as Dextran-FITC or ethidium D or with the demonstration by scanning electron microscopy of augmented number and sizes of holes on the cellular membrane. Further investigations showed that increases in bioluminescence and membrane hole production with TTFields exposure disappeared by 24?h after cessation of alternating electric fields thus demonstrating that this phenomenom is reversible. Preliminary investigations showed that TTFields did not induce membrane holes in normal human fibroblasts thus suggesting that the phenomenom was specific to cancer cells. With TTFields, we present evidence showing augmented membrane accessibility by compounds such as 5-aminolevulinic acid, a reagent used intraoperatively to delineate tumor from normal tissue in glioblastoma patients. In addition, this mechanism helps to explain previous reports of additive and synergistic effects between TTFields and other chemotherapies. These findings have implications for the design of combination therapies in glioblastoma and other cancers and may significantly alter standard of care strategies for these diseases.

Project description:ImportanceDisulfiram has demonstrated broad antitumoral effect in several preclinical studies. One of the proposed indications is for the treatment of glioblastoma.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram and copper as add-on to alkylating chemotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II/III clinical trial with parallel group design. Patients were recruited at 7 study sites in Sweden and 2 sites in Norway between January 2017 and November 2020. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a first recurrence of glioblastoma, and indication for treatment with alkylating chemotherapy. Patients were followed up until death or a maximum of 24 months. The date of final follow-up was January 15, 2021. Data analysis was performed from February to September 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard-of-care (SOC) alkylating chemotherapy alone, or SOC with the addition of disulfiram (400 mg daily) and copper (2.5 mg daily).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was survival at 6 months. Secondary end points included overall survival, progression-free survival, adverse events, and patient-reported quality of life.ResultsAmong the 88 patients randomized to either SOC (n = 45) or SOC plus disulfiram and copper (n = 43), 63 (72%) were male; the mean (SD) age was 55.4 (11.5) years. There was no significant difference between the study groups (SOC vs SOC plus disulfiram and copper) in 6 months survival (62% [26 of 42] vs 44% [19 of 43]; P = .10). Median overall survival was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-10.2 months) with SOC and 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.9-9.3 months) with SOC plus disulfiram and copper, and median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 2.4-4.6 months) vs 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.7-2.6 months), respectively. More patients in the SOC plus disulfiram and copper group had adverse events grade 3 or higher (34% [14 of 41] vs 11% [5 of 44]; P = .02) and serious adverse events (41% [17 of 41] vs 16% [7 of 44]; P = .02), and 10 patients (24%) discontinued disulfiram treatment because of adverse effects.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that among patients with recurrent glioblastoma, the addition of disulfiram and copper to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, resulted in significantly increased toxic effects, but no significant difference in survival. These findings suggest that disulfiram and copper is without benefit in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02678975; EUDRACT Identifier: 2016-000167-16.

Dataset Information

Tumor-treating fields plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for glioblastoma at first recurrence: a post hoc analysis of the EF-14 trial.

Publications

Tumor-treating fields plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for glioblastoma at first recurrence: a post hoc analysis of the EF-14 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets