Bevacizumab is approved for the treatment of patients with progressive glioblastoma on the basis of uncontrolled data. Data from a phase 2 trial suggested that the addition of bevacizumab to ...lomustine might improve overall survival as compared with monotherapies. We sought to determine whether the combination would result in longer overall survival than lomustine alone among patients at first progression of glioblastoma.
We randomly assigned patients with progression after chemoradiation in a 2:1 ratio to receive lomustine plus bevacizumab (combination group, 288 patients) or lomustine alone (monotherapy group, 149 patients). The methylation status of the promoter of O
-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) was assessed. Health-related quality of life and neurocognitive function were evaluated at baseline and every 12 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was overall survival.
A total of 437 patients underwent randomization. The median number of 6-week treatment cycles was three in the combination group and one in the monotherapy group. With 329 overall survival events (75.3%), the combination therapy did not provide a survival advantage; the median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval CI, 8.1 to 10.1) in the combination group and 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 10.4) in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21; P=0.65). Locally assessed progression-free survival was 2.7 months longer in the combination group than in the monotherapy group: 4.2 months versus 1.5 months (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61; P<0.001). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 63.6% of the patients in the combination group and 38.1% of the patients in the monotherapy group. The addition of bevacizumab to lomustine affected neither health-related quality of life nor neurocognitive function. The MGMT status was prognostic.
Despite somewhat prolonged progression-free survival, treatment with lomustine plus bevacizumab did not confer a survival advantage over treatment with lomustine alone in patients with progressive glioblastoma. (Funded by an unrestricted educational grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche and by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund; EORTC 26101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01290939 ; Eudra-CT number, 2010-023218-30 .).
Pseudoprogression of brain tumors Thust, Stefanie C.; van den Bent, Martin J.; Smits, Marion
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging,
September 2018, Letnik:
48, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
This review describes the definition, incidence, clinical implications, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of pseudoprogression of brain tumors, in particular, but not limited to, ...high‐grade glioma. Pseudoprogression is an important clinical problem after brain tumor treatment, interfering not only with day‐to‐day patient care but also the execution and interpretation of clinical trials. Radiologically, pseudoprogression is defined as a new or enlarging area(s) of contrast agent enhancement, in the absence of true tumor growth, which subsides or stabilizes without a change in therapy. The clinical definitions of pseudoprogression have been quite variable, which may explain some of the differences in reported incidences, which range from 9–30%. Conventional structural MRI is insufficient for distinguishing pseudoprogression from true progressive disease, and advanced imaging is needed to obtain higher levels of diagnostic certainty. Perfusion MRI is the most widely used imaging technique to diagnose pseudoprogression and has high reported diagnostic accuracy. Diagnostic performance of MR spectroscopy (MRS) appears to be somewhat higher, but MRS is less suitable for the routine and universal application in brain tumor follow‐up. The combination of MRS and diffusion‐weighted imaging and/or perfusion MRI seems to be particularly powerful, with diagnostic accuracy reaching up to or even greater than 90%. While diagnostic performance can be high with appropriate implementation and interpretation, even a combination of techniques, however, does not provide 100% accuracy. It should also be noted that most studies to date are small, heterogeneous, and retrospective in nature. Future improvements in diagnostic accuracy can be expected with harmonization of acquisition and postprocessing, quantitative MRI and computer‐aided diagnostic technology, and meticulous evaluation with clinical and pathological data.
Level of Evidence: 3
Technical Efficacy: Stage 2
J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:571–589.
Several studies have provided ample evidence of a clinically significant interobserver variation of the histological diagnosis of glioma. This interobserver variation has an effect on both the typing ...and grading of glial tumors. Since treatment decisions are based on histological diagnosis and grading, this affects patient care: erroneous classification and grading may result in both over- and undertreatment. In particular, the radiotherapy dosage and the use of chemotherapy are affected by tumor grade and lineage. It also affects the conduct and interpretation of clinical trials on glioma, in particular of studies into grade II and grade III gliomas. Although trials with central pathology review prior to inclusion will result in a more homogeneous patient population, the interpretation and external validity of such trials are still affected by this, and the question whether results of such trials can be generalized to patients diagnosed and treated elsewhere remains to be answered. Although molecular classification may help in typing and grading tumors, as of today this is still in its infancy and unlikely to completely replace histological classification. Routine pathology review in everyday clinical practice should be considered. More objective histological criteria for the grade and lineage of gliomas are urgently needed.
The role of temozolomide chemotherapy in newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas, which are associated with lower sensitivity to chemotherapy and worse prognosis than 1p/19q ...co-deleted tumours, is unclear. We assessed the use of radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in adults with non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas.
This was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma with WHO performance status scores of 0–2. The randomisation schedule was generated with the electronic EORTC web-based ORTA system. Patients were assigned in equal numbers (1:1:1:1), using the minimisation technique, to receive radiotherapy (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions of 1·8 Gy) alone or with adjuvant temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150–200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1–5); or to receive radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide 75 mg/m2 per day, with or without adjuvant temozolomide. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted for performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, presence of oligodendroglial elements, and MGMT promoter methylation status, analysed by intention to treat. We did a planned interim analysis after 219 (41%) deaths had occurred to test the null hypothesis of no efficacy (threshold for rejection p<0·0084). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00626990.
At the time of the interim analysis, 745 (99%) of the planned 748 patients had been enrolled. The hazard ratio for overall survival with use of adjuvant temozolomide was 0·65 (99·145% CI 0·45–0·93). Overall survival at 5 years was 55·9% (95% CI 47·2–63·8) with and 44·1% (36·3–51·6) without adjuvant temozolomide. Grade 3–4 adverse events were seen in 8–12% of 549 patients assigned temozolomide, and were mainly haematological and reversible.
Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Further analysis of the role of concurrent temozolomide treatment and molecular factors is needed.
Schering Plough and MSD.
The CATNON trial investigated the addition of concurrent, adjuvant, and both current and adjuvant temozolomide to radiotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. ...The benefit of concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy and relevance of mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes remain unclear.
This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 137 institutions across Australia, Europe, and North America included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally using a minimisation technique to radiotherapy alone (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy), radiotherapy with concurrent oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 per day), radiotherapy with adjuvant oral temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150–200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1–5), or radiotherapy with both concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients were stratified by institution, WHO performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, the presence of oligodendroglial elements on microscopy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted by stratification factors at randomisation in the intention-to-treat population. A second interim analysis requested by the independent data monitoring committee was planned when two-thirds of total required events were observed to test superiority or futility of concurrent temozolomide. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00626990.
Between Dec 4, 2007, and Sept 11, 2015, 751 patients were randomly assigned (189 to radiotherapy alone, 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide, 186 to radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide, and 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide). Median follow-up was 55·7 months (IQR 41·0–77·3). The second interim analysis declared futility of concurrent temozolomide (median overall survival was 66·9 months 95% CI 45·7–82·3 with concurrent temozolomide vs 60·4 months 45·7–71·5 without concurrent temozolomide; hazard ratio HR 0·97 99·1% CI 0·73–1·28, p=0·76). By contrast, adjuvant temozolomide improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant temozolomide (median overall survival 82·3 months 95% CI 67·2–116·6 vs 46·9 months 37·9–56·9; HR 0·64 95% CI 0·52–0·79, p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were haematological, occurring in no patients in the radiotherapy only group, 16 (9%) of 185 patients in the concurrent temozolomide group, and 55 (15%) of 368 patients in both groups with adjuvant temozolomide. No treatment-related deaths were reported.
Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Clinical benefit was dependent on IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status.
Merck Sharpe & Dohme.
cIMPACT‐NOW (the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy) was established to evaluate and make practical recommendations on recent advances in the field of CNS ...tumor classification, particularly in light of the rapid progress in molecular insights into these neoplasms. For Round 2 of its deliberations, cIMPACT‐NOW Working Committee 3 was reconstituted and convened in Utrecht, The Netherlands, for a meeting designed to review putative new CNS tumor types in advance of any future World Health Organization meeting on CNS tumor classification. In preparatory activities for the meeting and at the actual meeting, a list of possible entities was assembled and each type and subtype debated. Working Committee 3 recommended that a substantial number of newly recognized types and subtypes should be considered for inclusion in future CNS tumor classifications. In addition, the group endorsed a number of principles—relating to classification categories, approaches to classification, nomenclature, and grading—that the group hopes will also inform the future classification of CNS neoplasms.
Objective
This study aimed at estimating the cumulative incidence of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment failure of first‐line monotherapy levetiracetam vs valproic acid in glioma patients with ...epilepsy.
Methods
In this retrospective observational study, a competing risks model was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from AED treatment initiation, for the two AEDs with death as a competing event. Patients were matched on baseline covariates potentially related to treatment assignment and outcomes of interest according to the nearest neighbor propensity score matching technique. Maximum duration of follow‐up was 36 months.
Results
In total, 776 patients using levetiracetam and 659 using valproic acid were identified. Matching resulted in two equal groups of 429 patients, with similar covariate distribution. The cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 33% 95% confidence interval (CI) 29%–38% vs 50% 95% CI 45%–55%; P < .001). When looking at specific reasons of treatment failure, treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 16% 95% CI 12%–19% vs 28% 95% CI 23%–32%; P < 0.001), but no differences were found for treatment failure due to adverse effects (12 months: 14% 95% CI 11%–18% vs 15% 95% CI 11%–18%; P = .636).
Significance
Our results suggest that levetiracetam may have favorable efficacy compared to valproic acid, whereas level of toxicity seems similar. Therefore, levetiracetam seems to be the preferred choice for first‐line AED treatment in patients with glioma.
Summary Since the introduction of chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide as the new standard of care for patients with glioblastoma, there has been an increasing awareness of progressive and enhancing ...lesions on MRI, noted immediately after the end of treatment, which are not related to tumour progression, but which are a treatment effect. This so-called pseudoprogression can occur in up to 20% of patients who have been treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy, and can explain about half of all cases of increasing lesions after the end of this treatment. These lesions decrease in size or stabilise without additional treatments and often remain clinically asymptomatic. Additionally, there is evidence that treatment-related necrosis occurs more frequently and earlier after temozolomide chemotherapy than after radiotherapy alone. The mechanisms behind these events have not yet been fully elucidated, but the likelihood is that chemoradiotherapy causes a higher degree of (desired) tumour-cell and endothelial-cell killing. This increased cell kill might lead to secondary reactions, such as oedema and abnormal vessel permeability in the tumour area, mimicking tumour progression, in addition to subsequent early treatment-related necrosis in some patients and milder subacute radiotherapy reactions in others. In patients managed with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy who have clinically asymptomatic progressive lesions at the end of treatment, adjuvant temozolomide should be continued; in clinically symptomatic patients, surgery should be considered. If mainly necrosis is noted during surgery, continuation of adjuvant temozolomide is logical. Trials on the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma should exclude patients with progression within the first 3 months after temozolomide chemoradiotherapy unless histological confirmation of tumour recurrence is available. Further research is needed to establish reliable imaging parameters that distinguish between true tumour progression and pseudoprogression or treatment-related necrosis.
Summary Background Treatment options for recurrent glioblastoma are scarce, with second-line chemotherapy showing only modest activity against the tumour. Despite the absence of well controlled ...trials, bevacizumab is widely used in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. Nonetheless, whether the high response rates reported after treatment with this drug translate into an overall survival benefit remains unclear. We report the results of the first randomised controlled phase 2 trial of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma. Methods The BELOB trial was an open-label, three-group, multicentre phase 2 study undertaken in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a first recurrence of a glioblastoma after temozolomide chemoradiotherapy were randomly allocated by a web-based program to treatment with oral lomustine 110 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks, intravenous bevacizumab 10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks, or combination treatment with lomustine 110 mg/m2 every 6 weeks and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Randomisation of patients was stratified with a minimisation procedure, in which the stratification factors were centre, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and age. The primary outcome was overall survival at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat. A safety analysis was planned after the first ten patients completed two cycles of 6 weeks in the combination treatment group. This trial is registered with the Nederlands Trial Register ( www.trialregister.nl , number NTR1929). Findings Between Dec 11, 2009, and Nov 10, 2011, 153 patients were enrolled. The preplanned safety analysis was done after eight patients had been treated, because of haematological adverse events (three patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia and two had grade 4 thrombocytopenia) which reduced bevacizumab dose intensity; the lomustine dose in the combination treatment group was thereafter reduced to 90 mg/m2 . Thus, in addition to the eight patients who were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab plus lomustine 110 mg/m2 , 51 patients were assigned to receive bevacizumab alone, 47 to receive lomustine alone, and 47 to receive bevacizumab plus lomustine 90 mg/m2 . Of these patients, 50 in the bevacizumab alone group, 46 in the lomustine alone group, and 44 in the bevacizumab and lomustine 90 mg/m2 group were eligible for analyses. 9-month overall survival was 43% (95% CI 29–57) in the lomustine group, 38% (25–51) in the bevacizumab group, 59% (43–72) in the bevacizumab and lomustine 90 mg/m2 group, 87% (39–98) in the bevacizumab and lomustine 110 mg/m2 group, and 63% (49–75) for the combined bevacizumab and lomustine groups. After the reduction in lomustine dose in the combination group, the combined treatment was well tolerated. The most frequent grade 3 or worse toxicities were hypertension (13 26% of 50 patients in the bevacizumab group, three 7% of 46 in the lomustine group, and 11 25% of 44 in the bevacizumab and lomustine 90 mg/m2 group), fatigue (two 4%, four 9%, and eight 18%), and infections (three 6%, two 4%, and five 11%). At the time of this analysis, 144/148 (97%) of patients had died and three (2%) were still on treatment. Interpretation The combination of bevacizumab and lomustine met prespecified criteria for assessment of this treatment in further phase 3 studies. However, the results in the bevacizumab alone group do not justify further studies of this treatment. Funding Roche Nederland and KWF Kankerbestrijding.
PDF
