4.5 Article

Bevacizumab and fotemustine for recurrent glioblastoma: a phase II study of AINO (Italian Association of Neuro-Oncology)

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 116, Issue 3, Pages 533-541

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-013-1317-x

Keywords

Bevacizumab; Fotemustine; Nitrosoureas; Glioblastoma; Recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The optimal combination of bevacizumab with cytotoxic or cytostatic drugs in recurrent glioblastoma is unknown. We performed a phase 2 trial of combined bevacizumab and fotemustine for patients with glioblastoma at first relapse after radiotherapy and temozolomide. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate based on RANO criteria and toxicity. Fifty-four patients with recurrent GBM were enrolled. The authors observed a 6-month PFS rate of 42.6 % (95 % CI 29.3-55.2) and a median PFS of 5.2 months (95 % CI 3.8-6.6). The median OS was 9.1 months (95 % CI 7.3-10.3). Twenty-eight patients (52 %) had a radiographic response, and a significant neurological improvement with steroid reduction was observed in 25/42 symptomatic patients (60 %). MGMT promoter methylation was significantly associated with improved PFS in univariate analysis. Most unifocal tumors at baseline had a focal enhancing progression (76 %), while the diffuse non-enhancing progression accounted for 9.5 %. Response or survival were not associated with any pattern of progression. Survival after failure of treatment was short. Twelve out of 54 patients (22 %) discontinued fotemustine for grade 3/4 myelotoxicity, while 4/54 (7.4 %) discontinued bevacizumab. This study failed to demonstrate a superiority of the combination of bevacizumab and fotemustine over either bevacizumab or fotemustine alone as historical controls. Future studies should explore alternative regimens of combination of the two drugs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available