OBJECTIVES: Reports of glioblastoma (GBM) progression following treatment with bevacizumab indicate that a subset of patients develop disseminated, often minimally enhancing tumors that differ from the typical pattern of focal recurrence. We have reviewed our institutional experience with bevacizumab for GBM to evaluate the prognostic factors and outcomes of patients with disseminated progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients treated for GBM at the University of California San Francisco from 2005 to 2009 were reviewed. Patients receiving bevacizumab for focal disease were evaluated and imaging was reviewed to identify patients who progressed in a disseminated pattern. Tumor and treatment factors were compared between focal and disseminated progressors to identify predictive factors for dissemination. Clinical outcomes were compared between progression groups. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients received adjuvant bevacizumab at some point in their disease course in addition to surgical resection and standard chemoradiotherapy. Of these, 12 patients (17%) had disseminated progression after bevacizumab. There were no differences in patient demographics, surgical treatment, or bevacizumab administration between disseminated and focal progressors. Length of bevacizumab treatment for disseminated progressors trended toward increased time (7.4 vs. 5.4 months) but was not statistically significant (p=0.1). Although progression-free survival and overall survival did not differ significantly between progression groups (median survival from progression was 3.8 vs. 4.6 months, p=0.5), over 30% of focal progressors had a subsequent resection and enrollment in a surgically based clinical trial, whereas none of the disseminated progressors had further surgical intervention. Compared to previously published reports of GBM dissemination with and without prior bevacizumab treatment, our patients had a rate of disease dissemination similar to the baseline rate observed in patients treated without bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: The risk of dissemination does not appear to be considerably increased due to the use of bevacizumab, and the pattern of disease at progression does not affect subsequent survival. Therefore, the risk of dissemination should not influence the decision to treat with bevacizumab, especially for recurrent disease.
OBJECTIVES: Reports of glioblastoma (GBM) progression following treatment with bevacizumab indicate that a subset of patients develop disseminated, often minimally enhancing tumors that differ from the typical pattern of focal recurrence. We have reviewed our institutional experience with bevacizumab for GBM to evaluate the prognostic factors and outcomes of patients with disseminated progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients treated for GBM at the University of California San Francisco from 2005 to 2009 were reviewed. Patients receiving bevacizumab for focal disease were evaluated and imaging was reviewed to identify patients who progressed in a disseminated pattern. Tumor and treatment factors were compared between focal and disseminated progressors to identify predictive factors for dissemination. Clinical outcomes were compared between progression groups. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients received adjuvant bevacizumab at some point in their disease course in addition to surgical resection and standard chemoradiotherapy. Of these, 12 patients (17%) had disseminated progression after bevacizumab. There were no differences in patient demographics, surgical treatment, or bevacizumab administration between disseminated and focal progressors. Length of bevacizumab treatment for disseminated progressors trended toward increased time (7.4 vs. 5.4 months) but was not statistically significant (p=0.1). Although progression-free survival and overall survival did not differ significantly between progression groups (median survival from progression was 3.8 vs. 4.6 months, p=0.5), over 30% of focal progressors had a subsequent resection and enrollment in a surgically based clinical trial, whereas none of the disseminated progressors had further surgical intervention. Compared to previously published reports of GBM dissemination with and without prior bevacizumab treatment, our patients had a rate of disease dissemination similar to the baseline rate observed in patients treated without bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: The risk of dissemination does not appear to be considerably increased due to the use of bevacizumab, and the pattern of disease at progression does not affect subsequent survival. Therefore, the risk of dissemination should not influence the decision to treat with bevacizumab, especially for recurrent disease.
Authors: Ashwatha Narayana; Deborah Gruber; Saroj Kunnakkat; John G Golfinos; Erik Parker; Shahzad Raza; David Zagzag; Patricia Eagan; Michael L Gruber Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Aaron J Clark; Nicholas A Butowski; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados; Jennifer Clarke; Mei-Yin C Polley; Michael E Sughrue; Michael W McDermott; Andrew T Parsa; Mitchel S Berger; Manish K Aghi Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2010-12-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: O L Chinot; T de La Motte Rouge; N Moore; A Zeaiter; A Das; H Phillips; Z Modrusan; T Cloughesy Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Herbert Hurwitz; Louis Fehrenbacher; William Novotny; Thomas Cartwright; John Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Ari Baron; Susan Griffing; Eric Holmgren; Napoleone Ferrara; Gwen Fyfe; Beth Rogers; Robert Ross; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ashwatha Narayana; John G Golfinos; Ingeborg Fischer; Shahzad Raza; Patrick Kelly; Erik Parker; Edmond A Knopp; Praveen Medabalmi; David Zagzag; Patricia Eagan; Michael L Gruber Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James J Vredenburgh; Annick Desjardins; James E Herndon; Jennifer Marcello; David A Reardon; Jennifer A Quinn; Jeremy N Rich; Sith Sathornsumetee; Sridharan Gururangan; John Sampson; Melissa Wagner; Leighann Bailey; Darell D Bigner; Allan H Friedman; Henry S Friedman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Teri N Kreisl; Lyndon Kim; Kraig Moore; Paul Duic; Cheryl Royce; Irene Stroud; Nancy Garren; Megan Mackey; John A Butman; Kevin Camphausen; John Park; Paul S Albert; Howard A Fine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-12-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A D Norden; G S Young; K Setayesh; A Muzikansky; R Klufas; G L Ross; A S Ciampa; L G Ebbeling; B Levy; J Drappatz; S Kesari; P Y Wen Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Maximilian Niyazi; Patrick N Harter; Elke Hattingen; Maya Rottler; Louisa von Baumgarten; Martin Proescholdt; Claus Belka; Kirsten Lauber; Michel Mittelbronn Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-01-19