Literature DB >> 30522967

Regorafenib compared with lomustine in patients with relapsed glioblastoma (REGOMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

Giuseppe Lombardi1, Gian Luca De Salvo2, Alba Ariela Brandes3, Marica Eoli4, Roberta Rudà5, Marina Faedi6, Ivan Lolli7, Andrea Pace8, Bruno Daniele9, Francesco Pasqualetti10, Simona Rizzato11, Luisa Bellu1, Ardi Pambuku1, Miriam Farina2, Giovanna Magni2, Stefano Indraccolo12, Marina Paola Gardiman13, Riccardo Soffietti5, Vittorina Zagonel14.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is a highly vascularised tumour and there are few treatment options after disease recurrence. Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma.
METHODS: REGOMA is a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial done in ten centres in Italy. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed glioblastoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and documented disease progression after surgery followed by radiotherapy and temozolomide chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based system, stratified by centre and surgery at recurrence (yes vs no), to receive regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle or lomustine 110 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02926222, and is currently in follow-up.
FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2015, and Feb 23, 2017, 124 patients were screened and 119 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive regorafenib (n=59) or lomustine (n=60). Median follow-up was 15·4 months (IQR 13·8-18·1). At the analysis cutoff date, 99 (83%) of 119 patients had died: 42 (71%) of 59 in the regorafenib group and 57 (95%) of 60 in the lomustine group. Overall survival was significantly improved in the regorafenib group compared with the lomustine group, with a median overall survival of 7·4 months (95% CI 5·8-12·0) in the regorafenib group and 5·6 months (4·7-7·3) in the lomustine group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·33-0·75; log-rank p=0·0009). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33 (56%) of 59 patients treated with regorafenib and 24 (40%) of 60 with lomustine. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to regorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction, increased lipase, and blood bilirubin increased (in six [10%] of 59 patients each). In the lomustine group, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased platelet count (eight [13%] of 60 patients), decreased lymphocyte count (eight [13%]), and neutropenia (seven [12%]). No death was considered by the investigators to be drug related.
INTERPRETATION: REGOMA showed an encouraging overall survival benefit of regorafenib in recurrent glioblastoma. This drug might be a new potential treatment for these patients and should be investigated in an adequately powered phase 3 study. FUNDING: Veneto Institute of Oncology and Bayer Italy.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30522967     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30675-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  65 in total

Review 1.  Glioblastoma in adults: a Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and European Society of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) consensus review on current management and future directions.

Authors:  Patrick Y Wen; Michael Weller; Eudocia Quant Lee; Brian M Alexander; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Floris P Barthel; Tracy T Batchelor; Ranjit S Bindra; Susan M Chang; E Antonio Chiocca; Timothy F Cloughesy; John F DeGroot; Evanthia Galanis; Mark R Gilbert; Monika E Hegi; Craig Horbinski; Raymond Y Huang; Andrew B Lassman; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Lim; Minesh P Mehta; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Giuseppe Minniti; David Nathanson; Michael Platten; Matthias Preusser; Patrick Roth; Marc Sanson; David Schiff; Susan C Short; Martin J B Taphoorn; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Jonathan Tsang; Roel G W Verhaak; Andreas von Deimling; Wolfgang Wick; Gelareh Zadeh; David A Reardon; Kenneth D Aldape; Martin J van den Bent
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 12.300

2.  Regorafenib in advanced high-grade glioma: a retrospective bicentric analysis.

Authors:  Theophilos Tzaridis; Irina Gepfner-Tuma; Sophie Hirsch; Marco Skardelly; Benjamin Bender; Frank Paulsen; Christina Schaub; Johannes Weller; Niklas Schäfer; Ulrich Herrlinger; Ghazaleh Tabatabai
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 12.300

3.  A molecular signature associated with prolonged survival in glioblastoma patients treated with regorafenib.

Authors:  Alessandra Santangelo; Marzia Rossato; Giuseppe Lombardi; Salvatore Benfatto; Denise Lavezzari; Gian Luca De Salvo; Stefano Indraccolo; Maria Cristina Dechecchi; Paola Prandini; Roberto Gambari; Chiara Scapoli; Gianfranco Di Gennaro; Mario Caccese; Marica Eoli; Roberta Rudà; Alba Ariela Brandes; Toni Ibrahim; Simona Rizzato; Ivan Lolli; Giuseppe Lippi; Massimo Delledonne; Vittorina Zagonel; Giulio Cabrini
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 4.  Pharmacotherapeutic Treatment of Glioblastoma: Where Are We to Date?

Authors:  Lidia Gatto; Vincenzo Di Nunno; Enrico Franceschi; Alicia Tosoni; Stefania Bartolini; Alba Ariela Brandes
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 5.  Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Catherine McBain; Theresa A Lawrie; Ewelina Rogozińska; Ashleigh Kernohan; Tomos Robinson; Sarah Jefferies
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-05-04

6.  Congress of Neurological Surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guidelines update on the role of targeted therapies and immunotherapies in the management of progressive glioblastoma.

Authors:  Evan Winograd; Isabelle Germano; Patrick Wen; Jeffrey J Olson; D Ryan Ormond
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 7.  Pineal Gland Tumor Microenvironment.

Authors:  Joham Choque-Velasquez; Szymon Baluszek; Roberto Colasanti; Sajjad Muhammad; Juha Hernesniemi
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.622

8.  A Drug Screening Pipeline Using 2D and 3D Patient-Derived In Vitro Models for Pre-Clinical Analysis of Therapy Response in Glioblastoma.

Authors:  Sakthi Lenin; Elise Ponthier; Kaitlin G Scheer; Erica C F Yeo; Melinda N Tea; Lisa M Ebert; Mariana Oksdath Mansilla; Santosh Poonnoose; Ulrich Baumgartner; Bryan W Day; Rebecca J Ormsby; Stuart M Pitson; Guillermo A Gomez
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 9.  Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy of existing treatments for patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Authors:  Anna Schritz; Nassera Aouali; Aurélie Fischer; Coralie Dessenne; Roisin Adams; Guy Berchem; Laetitia Huiart; Susanne Schmitz
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2021-04-09

Review 10.  Lessons learned from contemporary glioblastoma randomized clinical trials through systematic review and network meta-analysis: part 2 recurrent glioblastoma.

Authors:  Shervin Taslimi; Vincent C Ye; Patrick Y Wen; Gelareh Zadeh
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2021-02-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.