Dataset Information

Lessons learned from contemporary glioblastoma randomized clinical trials through systematic review and network meta-analysis: part 2 newly diagnosed disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common malignant brain tumor with a dismal prognosis despite standard of care (SOC). Here we used a network meta-analysis on treatments from randomized control trials (RCTs) to assess the effect on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) beyond the SOC.

Methods

We included RCTs that investigated the addition of a new treatment to the SOC in patients with newly diagnosed GB. Our primary outcome was OS, with secondary outcomes including PFS and adverse reactions. Hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) regarding OS and PFS were extracted from each paper. We utilized a frequentist network meta-analysis. We planned a subgroup analysis based on O⁶-methylguanine-DNA methyl-transferase (MGMT) status. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Results

Twenty-one studies were included representing a total of 7403 patients with GB. There was significant heterogeneity among studies impacting important factors such as timing of randomization and sample size. A confidence analysis on the network meta-analysis results revealed a score of low or very low for all treatment comparisons, across subgroups. Allowing for the heterogeneity within the study population, alkylating nitrosoureas (Lomustine and ACNU) and tumor-treating field improved both OS (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.84 and HR = 0.63 95% CI 0.42-0.94, respectively) and PFS (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00 and HR = 0.63 95% CI 0.52-0.76, respectively).

Conclusions

Our analysis highlights the numerous studies performed on newly diagnosed GB, with no proven consensus treatment that is superior to the current SOC. Intertrial heterogeneity raises the need for better standardization in neuro-oncology studies.

SUBMITTER: Taslimi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8134529 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlioblastoma is the most aggressive primary brain cancer with a poor prognosis. Despite numerous studies in the past 17 years, effective treatment options for glioblastoma remain limited. In this study, we aimed to identify and compare phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma in terms of efficacy and baseline characteristics.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma in adult patients. The target population included adult patients aged 18 years and above (younger cohort) and patients ≥60 years of age (elderly cohort). The search results were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria, and the included trials were analyzed for their study design, baseline characteristics, and survival results.ResultsEleven trials met the inclusion criteria in the younger cohort. Of these, three reported a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS), including the EORTC/NCIC study (NCT00006353), EF-14 (NCT00916409), and CeTeG (NCT01149109). Of the 11 trials, eight were open-label randomized trials, including all of the positive ones, while three negative trials employed treatment blinding and a placebo control. The baseline characteristics of the trials [such as extent of resection, age, gender, and O(6)-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status] did not significantly differ between positive and negative trials. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status was analyzed in only two trials, with a small percentage of IDH-mutated tumors in each. Additionally, three more trials in the elderly cohort showed a statistically significant improvement of OS, the NOA-08 trial, the ISRCTN81470623-trial by Malmström et al. and NCT00482677-trial by Perry et al. Their baseline characteristics and implications are also analyzed.ConclusionThis analysis of phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma conducted since 2005 showed that the majority of trials did not result in a significant improvement in OS. Among the trials included in this analysis, only the EORTC/NCIC, EF-14, and CeTeG studies demonstrated a positive OS outcome in the younger cohort.

Project description:Abstract Background Despite a plethora of studies since the EORTC/NCIC trial in 2005, glioblastoma (GBM) prognosis remains poor. We here identify and compare glioblastoma phase III trials in terms of efficacy and baseline characteristics in an attempt to summarize the experience of the past 16 years. Methods A systematic literature search using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to provide an overview of clinically relevant GBM phase III trials (years 2005-2021) of adult patients younger than 70 years of age. Search results were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria and either excluded or included in further analysis on study design, baseline characteristics, and survival results. Results Eleven trials from the literature and clinical trial database fulfilled the search criteria. Among these trials, a total of three GBM phase III trials reported overall survival (OS) benefit, including the EORTC/NCIC study (NCT00006353), EF-14 (NCT00916409) and CeTeG/NOA09 (NCT01149109). All three studies demonstrate similar hazard ratios, which translate into risk reduction of about 40%. Furthermore, low toxicity profile and mostly preserved quality of life were attributed to the treatments tested. Looking at the study designs, eight out of eleven trials were open label randomized trials, including all of the positive ones, and only three negative trials employed treatment blinding and a placebo control. Canonical baseline characteristics (extent of resection, age, gender, MGMT promoter methylation status) did not significantly differ between positive and negative trials. IDH mutation status was analyzed in only two trials, each showing a small percentage of IDH-mutant tumors only. Conclusion This analysis on GBM phase III trials conducted between 2005 and 2021 revealed that the majority of trials did not show a significant improvement in overall survival. CeTeG/NOA-09 and EF-14 are the only two studies with positive overall survival outcome since the EORTC/NCIC trial in 2005.