4.5 Article

Retrospective study of nivolumab for patients with recurrent high grade gliomas

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 139, 期 3, 页码 625-631

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-018-2907-4

关键词

Bevacizumab; High-grade Glioma; Nivolumab; Glioblastoma; Refractory

资金

  1. Gregory T.H. Davies Brain Tumor Research and Physician Education Endowment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionPatients with recurrent high-grade gliomas (HGG) have limited treatment options. HGG utilize the PD-1 pathway to evade immune responses. Checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated safety and clinical activity in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. We explored the efficacy of nivolumab in recurrent HGG with a primary objective of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed HGG patients treated with nivolumab in our institution. We included patients with advanced HGG who received nivolumab at their oncologist's decision. Patients received nivolumab 3mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed progression, intolerable toxicity, death, or physician decision. Radiographic assessments were performed every 8 weeks.ResultsBetween April 2015 and October 2017, 50 HGG patients received nivolumab. 43 patients received nivolumab with bevacizumab. 44 patients were bevacizumab refractory and 7 patients received nivolumab monotherapy. All had received prior radiation and chemotherapy. 39 adverse events (AEs) were noted [most commonly fatigue (16%) and constipation (10%)]. 4 (8%) patients experienced grade 3-4 AEs. 36 (72%) patients experienced stable disease (SD) at the 2-month assessment. Median duration of SD was 4.3 months (5.1 months in the bevacizumab naive, 3.8 months in the bevacizumab refractory). Median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI 3.5-5.3); median OS was 6.5 months (95% CI 6.0-8.8).ConclusionTreatment with nivolumab therapy was associated with a manageable safety profile. In a subset of patients, there was disease stabilization in heavily pre-treated recurrent HGG.

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

4.5
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