4.6 Article

Phase II study of panobinostat in combination with bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma and anaplastic glioma

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 862-867

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nou350

关键词

anaplastic glioma; antiangiogenesis; bevacizumab; glioblastoma; panobinostat

资金

  1. Novartis
  2. Genentech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Panobinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor with antineoplastic and antiangiogenic effects in glioma that may work synergistically with bevacizumab. We conducted a multicenter phase II trial of panobinostat combined with bevacizumab in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG). Methods. Patients with recurrent HGG were treated with oral panobinostat 30 mg 3 times per week, every other week, in combination with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every other week. The primary endpoint was a 6-month progression-fee survival (PFS6) rate for participants with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Patients with recurrent anaplastic glioma (AG) were evaluated as an exploratory arm of the study. Results. At interim analysis, the GBM arm did not meet criteria for continued accrual, and the GBM arm was closed. A total of 24 patients with GBM were accrued prior to closure. The PFS6 rate was 30.4% (95%, CI 12.4%-50.7%), median PFS was 5 months (range, 3-9 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 9 months (range, 6-19 months). Accrual in the AG arm continued to completion, and a total of 15 patients were enrolled. The PFS6 rate was 46.7% (range, 21%-73%), median PFS was 7 months (range, 2-10 months), and median OS was 17 months (range, 5 months-27 months). Conclusions. This phase II study of panobinostat and bevacizumab in participants with recurrent GBM did not meet criteria for continued accrual, and the GBM cohort of the study was closed. Although it was reasonably well tolerated, the addition of panobinostat to bevacizumab did not significantly improve PFS6 compared with historical controls of bevacizumab monotherapy in either cohort.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据