4.6 Article

A randomized controlled phase III study of VB-111 combined with bevacizumab vs bevacizumab monotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GLOBE)

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 705-717

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noz232

关键词

anti-angiogenesis; gene therapy; glioblastoma VB-111; viral immuno-oncology

资金

  1. VBL Therapeutics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Ofranergene obadenovec (VB-111) is an anticancer viral therapy that demonstrated in a phase II study a survival benefit for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) who were primed with VB-111 monotherapy that was continued after progression with concomitant bevacizumab. Methods. This pivotal phase Ill randomized, controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of upfront combination of VB-111 and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive VB-111 10(13) viral particles every 8 weeks in combination with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (combination arm) or bevacizumab monotherapy (control arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria and progression-free survival (PFS). Results. Enrolled were 256 patients at 57 sites. Median exposure to VB-111 was 4 months. The study did not meet its primary or secondary goals. Median OS was 6.8 versus 7.9 months in the combination versus control arm (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI: 0.91-1.59; P= 0.19) and ORR was 27.3% versus 21.9% (P= 0.26). A higher rate of grades 3-5 adverse events was reported in the combination arm (67% vs 40%), mainly attributed to a higher rate of CNS and flu-like/fever events.Trends for improved survival with combination treatment were seen in the subgroup of patients with smaller tumors and in patients who had a posttreatment febrile reaction. Conclusions. In this study, upfront concomitant administration of VB-111 and bevacizumab failed to improve outcomes in rGBM. Change of treatment regimen, with the lack of VB-111 monotherapy priming, may explain the differences from the favorable phase II results.

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