4.7 Article

Bevacizumab in real-life patients with recurrent glioblastoma: benefit or futility?

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 270, Issue 5, Pages 2702-2714

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11600-w

Keywords

Glioblastoma; Bevacizumab; Patients; Overall survival; Quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the real-life benefit of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma patients. The results showed significant improvements in overall survival, time to treatment failure, radiological response, and clinical benefit. Therefore, bevacizumab as a therapeutic option has clinical significance for these patients.
PurposeAngiogenesis plays a key role in glioblastoma, but most anti-angiogenic therapy trials have failed to change the poor outcome of this disease. Despite this, and because bevacizumab is known to alleviate symptoms, it is used in daily practice. We aimed to assess the real-life benefit in terms of overall survival, time to treatment failure, objective response, and clinical benefit in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab.MethodsThis was a monocentric, retrospective study including patients treated between 2006 and 2016 in our institution.Results202 patients were included. The median duration of bevacizumab treatment was 6 months. Median time to treatment failure was 6.8 months (95%CI 5.3-8.2) and median overall survival was 23.7 months (95%CI 20.6-26.8). Fifty percent of patients had a radiological response at first MRI evaluation, and 56% experienced symptom amelioration. Grade 1/2 hypertension (n = 34, 17%) and grade one proteinuria (n = 20, 10%) were the most common side effects.ConclusionsThis study reports a clinical benefit and an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. As the panel of therapies is still very limited for these tumors, this work supports the use of bevacizumab as a therapeutic option.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available