Second-Line Chemotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma: A 2-Cohort StudyCarvalho B.F.a · Fernandes A.C.b · Almeida D.S.b · Sampaio L.V.c · Costa A.b · Caeiro C.b · Osório L.d · Castro L.e · Linhares P.a · Damasceno M.b · Vaz R.C.a, f
a Department of Neurosurgery, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal; b Department of Medical Oncology, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal; c Department of Neuroradiology, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal; d Department of Radiotherapy, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal; e Department of Pathology, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal; f Neurosciences Department, Hospital CUF Porto, Portugal
Ana Catarina Bento Pires Fernandes, MD
Department of Medical Oncology
Centro Hospitalar de São João
Alameda Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
Do you have an account?
Background: Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common malignant primary central nervous system tumor in adults. Standard-of-care therapy includes surgical resection, radiotherapy and temozolomide, but nearly all patients experience disease progression. The purpose of this study was to describe 2 cohorts of patients with recurrent GB submitted to second-line treatment with procarbazine/lomustine/vincristine (PCV) or bevacizumab/irinotecan (BI). Material and Methods: Retrospective analysis of GB patients treated in our center with PCV or BI, after progression with temozolomide, between 2004 and 2012. Results: Among 60 patients, 41 were treated with BI and 19 with PCV. According to the Macdonald criteria, the overall response rate in the BI group was 66% (n = 27) while it was 11% (n = 2) in the PCV group. The median progression-free survival was 5 and 3 months in the BI and PCV group, respectively. The median overall survival (OS) since second-line chemotherapy was 9 months in the BI group and 5 months in the PCV group. The latter group had a worse toxicity profile (grade 3-4: 52.6% vs. 22.0%; grade 1-2: 89.5% vs. 68.3%). Conclusions: The BI cohort had higher response rates, almost twice the OS and a lower degree of toxicity in contrast to the PCV group. The small number of patients and historical cohorts limits these comparisons.
© 2015 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States: Statistical Report: Primary brain tumors in the United States, 2004-2007. Hinsdale, CBTRUS, 2011. www. cbtrus.org.
- Easaw JC, Mason WP, Perry J, et al.: Canadian recommendations for the treatment of recurrent or progressive glioblastoma multiforme. Curr Oncol 2011;18: e126-e136.
- Friedman HS, Petros WP, Friedman AH, et al.: Irinotecan therapy in adults with recurrent or progressive malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1516-1525.
- Fulton D, Urtasun R, Forsyth P: Phase II study of prolonged oral therapy with etoposide (VP16) for patients with recurrent malignant glioma. J Neurooncol 1996;27:149-155.
- Warnick RE, Prados MD, Mack EE, et al.: A phase II study of intravenous carboplatin for the treatment of recurrent gliomas. J Neurooncol 1994;19:69-74.
- Wong ET, Hess KR, Gleason MJ, et al.: Outcomes and prognostic factors in recurrent glioma patients enrolled onto phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2572-2578.
- Godard S, Getz G, Delorenzi M, et al.: Classification of human astrocytic gliomas on the basis of gene expression: a correlated group of genes with angiogenic activity emerges as a strong predictor of subtypes. Cancer Res 2003;63:6613-6625.
- Lamszus K, Kunkel P, Westphal M: Invasion as limitation to anti-angiogenic glioma therapy. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2003;88:169-177.
- Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE, et al.: Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4722-4729.
- Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, et al.: Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4733-4740.
- Hygino da Cruz LC Jr, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, Gasparetto EL, Sorensen AG: Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1978-1985.
- Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al.: Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963-1972.
- Iwamoto FM, Abrey LE, Beal K, et al.: Patterns of relapse and prognosis after bevacizumab failure in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology 2009;73:1200-1206.
- Narayana A, Kunnakkat SD, Medabalmi P, et al.: Change in pattern of relapse after antiangiogenic therapy in high-grade glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:77-82.
- Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K, et al.: Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology 2008;70:779-787.
- Brada M, Stenning S, Gabe R, et al.: Temozolomide versus procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine in recurrent high-grade glioma. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4601-4608.
Brandes A, Finocchiaro G, Zagonel V, Fabi A, et al.: Randomized phase II trial AVAREG (ML25739) with bevacizumab (BEV) or fotemustine (FTM) in recurrent GBM: final results from the randomized phase II trial. Ann Oncol 2014;25(suppl 4):iv137-iv145.
- Kreisl TN, Kim L, Moore K, et al.: Phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab plus irinotecan at tumor progression in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:740-745.
- Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE, et al.: Phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:1253-1259.
- Wong ET, Gautam S, Malchow C, Lun M, Pan E, Brem S: Bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: a meta-analysis. J Nat Compr Canc Netw 2011;9:403-407.
- Xu T, Chen J, Lu Y, Wolff JE: Effects of bevacizumab plus irinotecan on response and survival in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: a systematic review and survival-gain analysis. BMC Cancer 2010;10:252.
- Zhang G, Huang S, Wang Z: A meta-analysis of bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in the treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19:1636-1640.
- Zuniga RM, Torcuator R, Jain R, et al.: Efficacy, safety and patterns of response and recurrence in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab plus irinotecan. J Neurooncol 2009;91:329-336.
- Taal W, Oosterkamp HM, Walenkamp AM, et al.: Single-agent bevacizumab or lomustine versus a combination of bevacizumab plus lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (BELOB trial): a randomised controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:943-953.
- Kang TY, Jin T, Elinzano H, Peereboom D: Irinotecan and bevacizumab in progressive primary brain tumors, an evaluation of efficacy and safety. J Neurooncol 2008;89:113-118.
- Paez-Ribes M, Allen E, Hudock J, et al.: Antiangiogenic therapy elicits malignant progression of tumors to increased local invasion and distant metastasis. Cancer Cell 2009;15:220-231.
Gilbert MW, Wang M, Aldape KD, et al.: RTOG 0525: a randomized phase III trial comparing standard adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) with a dose-dense (dd) schedule in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). J Clin Oncol 2011;29:abstr 2006.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.