Dataset Information

Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy vs single-agent therapy in recurrent glioblastoma: evidence from randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recent studies showed inconsistent results of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy vs single-agent therapy in terms of their safety and efficacy for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to explore the value of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy and single-agent therapy in recurrent glioblastoma treatment.

Methods

Databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the topic of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy and single-agent therapy as treatments for recurrent glioblastoma from January 1980 to April 2018. Subsequent articles were then sorted, evaluated, and analyzed.

Results

We pooled 1,169 patient cases from seven RCTs. Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy showed a significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.65; 95% CI 0.57-0.74; P<0.001) compared to single-agent therapy. In addition, the overall survival (OS) rate showed insignificant differences between the two groups (HR=0.96; 95% CI 0.83-1.12; P=0.622). Simultaneously, we found that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy had a higher objective response rate (ORR) (OR=2.10; 95% CI 1.32-3.33; P=0.002), but also higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) (OR=1.85; 95% CI 1.26-2.71; P=0.002). However, in subgroup analysis, we found that AEs showed insignificant differences between the two treatment methods when bevacizumab was used as the single-agent therapy subgroup (P=0.058). In addition, in the subgroup with low corticosteroid use rate at baseline (N<50%), ORR (P=0.108) and AEs (P=0.134) showed insignificant differences between the two groups.

Conclusion

Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy can significantly improve PFS and ORR, but did not prolong OS in these studies, and can even lead to higher odds of AEs. In addition, bevacizumab may play a dominant role and corticosteroid may be an unfavorable factor in the combination therapy of recurrent glioblastoma.

SUBMITTER: Chen Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6061394 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsThis retrospective review of patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated at the Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center investigated treatment patterns, survival, and safety with bevacizumab in a real-world setting.MethodsAdult patients with glioblastoma who initiated bevacizumab at disease progression between January 1, 2009, and May 14, 2012, were included. A Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to describe overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to greater than or equal to 20% reduction in Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS). The effect of baseline demographic and clinical factors on survival was examined using a Cox proportional hazards model. Adverse event (AE) data were collected.ResultsSeventy-four patients, with a median age of 59 years, were included in this cohort. Between bevacizumab initiation and first failure, defined as the first disease progression after bevacizumab initiation, biweekly bevacizumab and bevacizumab/irinotecan were the most frequently prescribed regimens. Median duration of bevacizumab treatment until failure was 6.4 months (range, 0.5-58.7). Median OS and PFS from bevacizumab initiation were 11.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3-13.4) and 6.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.5), respectively. Median time to greater than or equal to 20% reduction in KPS was 29.3 months (95% CI, 13.8-?). Lack of corticosteroid usage at the start of bevacizumab therapy was associated with both longer OS and PFS, with a median OS of 13.2 months (95% CI, 8.6-16.6) in patients who did not initially require corticosteroids versus 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.8-12.5) in those who did (P = 0.0382, log-rank), while median PFS values were 8.6 months (95% CI, 4.6-9.7) and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.7-6.6), respectively (P = 0.0243, log-rank). Treatment failure occurred in 70 patients; 47 of whom received salvage therapy, and most frequently bevacizumab/carboplatin (7/47; 14.9%). Thirteen patients (18%) experienced a grade 3 AE of special interest for bevacizumab.ConclusionsTreatment patterns and outcomes for patients with recurrent glioblastoma receiving bevacizumab in a real-world setting were comparable with those reported in prospective clinical trials.

Project description:ImportanceClinical outcomes for glioblastoma remain poor. Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade has shown benefits in many cancer types. To our knowledge, data from a randomized phase 3 clinical trial evaluating a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy for glioblastoma have not been reported.ObjectiveTo determine whether single-agent PD-1 blockade with nivolumab improves survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma compared with bevacizumab.Design, setting, and participantsIn this open-label, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial, 439 patients with glioblastoma at first recurrence following standard radiation and temozolomide therapy were enrolled, and 369 were randomized. Patients were enrolled between September 2014 and May 2015. The median follow-up was 9.5 months at data cutoff of January 20, 2017. The study included 57 multicenter, multinational clinical sites.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 369 patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 184) or bevacizumab (n = 185). The MGMT promoter was methylated in 23.4% (43/184; nivolumab) and 22.7% (42/185; bevacizumab), unmethylated in 32.1% (59/184; nivolumab) and 36.2% (67/185; bevacizumab), and not reported in remaining patients. At median follow-up of 9.5 months, median OS (mOS) was comparable between groups: nivolumab, 9.8 months (95% CI, 8.2-11.8); bevacizumab, 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.0-11.8); HR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.83-1.30); P = .76. The 12-month OS was 42% in both groups. The objective response rate was higher with bevacizumab (23.1%; 95% CI, 16.7%-30.5%) vs nivolumab (7.8%; 95% CI, 4.1%-13.3%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar between groups (nivolumab, 33/182 [18.1%]; bevacizumab, 25/165 [15.2%]), with no unexpected neurological TRAEs or deaths due to TRAEs.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough the primary end point was not met in this randomized clinical trial, mOS was comparable between nivolumab and bevacizumab in the overall patient population with recurrent glioblastoma. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with glioblastoma was consistent with that in other tumor types.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02017717.