Evanthia Galanis1, S Keith Anderson2, Erin L Twohy2, Xiomara W Carrero2, Jesse G Dixon2, David Dinh Tran3, Suriya A Jeyapalan4, Daniel M Anderson5, Timothy J Kaufmann6, Ryan W Feathers7, Caterina Giannini8, Jan C Buckner1, Panos Z Anastasiadis7, David Schiff9. 1. Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Oncology Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Department of Neurology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Regions Hospital, St Paul, Minnesota. 6. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. Department of Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 8. Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 9. Department of Neurology, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Src signaling is markedly upregulated in patients with invasive glioblastoma (GBM) after the administration of bevacizumab. The Src family kinase inhibitor dasatinib has been found to effectively block bevacizumab-induced glioma invasion in preclinical models, which led to the hypothesis that combining bevacizumab with dasatinib could increase bevacizumab efficacy in patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: After the completion of the phase 1 component, the phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00892177) randomized patients with recurrent GBM 2:1 to receive 100 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B) on days 1 to 14 of each 14-day cycle combined with 10 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). RESULTS: In the 121 evaluable patients, the PFS6 rate was numerically, but not statistically, higher in arm A versus arm B (28.9% [95% CI, 19.5%-40.0%] vs 18.4% [95% CI, 7.7%-34.4%]; P = .22). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the median overall survival noted between the treatment arms (7.3 months and 7.7 months, respectively; P = .93). The objective response rate was 15.7% in arm A and 26.3% in arm B (P = .52), but with a significantly longer duration in patients treated on arm A (16.3 months vs 2 months). The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was comparable between treatment arms, with hematologic toxicities occurring more frequently in arm A versus arm B (15.7% vs 7.9%) (adverse events were assessed as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Correlative tissue analysis demonstrated an association between pSRC/LYN signaling in patient tumors and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite upregulation of Src signaling in patients with GBM, the combination of bevacizumab with dasatinib did not appear to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with recurrent GBM compared with bevacizumab alone.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Src signaling is markedly upregulated in patients with invasive glioblastoma (GBM) after the administration of bevacizumab. The Src family kinase inhibitor dasatinib has been found to effectively block bevacizumab-induced glioma invasion in preclinical models, which led to the hypothesis that combining bevacizumab with dasatinib could increase bevacizumab efficacy in patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: After the completion of the phase 1 component, the phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00892177) randomized patients with recurrent GBM 2:1 to receive 100 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B) on days 1 to 14 of each 14-day cycle combined with 10 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). RESULTS: In the 121 evaluable patients, the PFS6 rate was numerically, but not statistically, higher in arm A versus arm B (28.9% [95% CI, 19.5%-40.0%] vs 18.4% [95% CI, 7.7%-34.4%]; P = .22). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the median overall survival noted between the treatment arms (7.3 months and 7.7 months, respectively; P = .93). The objective response rate was 15.7% in arm A and 26.3% in arm B (P = .52), but with a significantly longer duration in patients treated on arm A (16.3 months vs 2 months). The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was comparable between treatment arms, with hematologic toxicities occurring more frequently in arm A versus arm B (15.7% vs 7.9%) (adverse events were assessed as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Correlative tissue analysis demonstrated an association between pSRC/LYN signaling in patienttumors and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite upregulation of Src signaling in patients with GBM, the combination of bevacizumab with dasatinib did not appear to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with recurrent GBM compared with bevacizumab alone.
Authors: David A Reardon; Annick Desjardins; Katherine B Peters; Sridharan Gururangan; John H Sampson; Roger E McLendon; James E Herndon; Anuradha Bulusu; Stevie Threatt; Allan H Friedman; James J Vredenburgh; Henry S Friedman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Walter Taal; Hendrika M Oosterkamp; Annemiek M E Walenkamp; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Laurens V Beerepoot; Monique C J Hanse; Jan Buter; Aafke H Honkoop; Dolf Boerman; Filip Y F de Vos; Winand N M Dinjens; Roelien H Enting; Martin J B Taphoorn; Franchette W P J van den Berkmortel; Rob L H Jansen; Dieta Brandsma; Jacoline E C Bromberg; Irene van Heuvel; René M Vernhout; Bronno van der Holt; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Evanthia Galanis; S Keith Anderson; Jackie M Lafky; Joon H Uhm; Caterina Giannini; Shaji K Kumar; Teresa K Kimlinger; Donald W Northfelt; Patrick J Flynn; Kurt A Jaeckle; Timothy J Kaufmann; Jan C Buckner Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Henry S Friedman; Michael D Prados; Patrick Y Wen; Tom Mikkelsen; David Schiff; Lauren E Abrey; W K Alfred Yung; Nina Paleologos; Martin K Nicholas; Randy Jensen; James Vredenburgh; Jane Huang; Maoxia Zheng; Timothy Cloughesy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Deborah Huveldt; Laura J Lewis-Tuffin; Brett L Carlson; Mark A Schroeder; Fausto Rodriguez; Caterina Giannini; Evanthia Galanis; Jann N Sarkaria; Panos Z Anastasiadis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Chiara Greco; Vincenzo Taresco; Amanda K Pearce; Catherine E Vasey; Stuart Smith; Ruman Rahman; Cameron Alexander; Robert J Cavanagh; Francesca Musumeci; Silvia Schenone Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Elizabeth Cooper; Peter J Choi; William A Denny; Jiney Jose; Mike Dragunow; Thomas I-H Park Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Obada T Alhalabi; Michael N C Fletcher; Thomas Hielscher; Tobias Kessler; Tolga Lokumcu; Ulrich Baumgartner; Elena Wittmann; Silja Schlue; Mona Göttmann; Shaman Rahman; Ling Hai; Lea Hansen-Palmus; Laura Puccio; Ichiro Nakano; Christel Herold-Mende; Bryan W Day; Wolfgang Wick; Felix Sahm; Emma Phillips; Violaine Goidts Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 13.029