BACKGROUND: The efficacy of bevacizumab (BEV) in elderly patients with glioblastoma remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of BEV on survival in this patient population using the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study analyzed SEER-Medicare data for patients (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with glioblastoma from 2006 to 2011. Two cohorts were constructed: one comprised patients who had received BEV (BEV cohort); the other comprised patients who had received any anticancer treatment other than BEV (NBEV cohort). The primary analysis used a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to compare overall survival in the BEV and NBEV cohorts with initiation of BEV as a time-dependent variable, adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, region, race, radiotherapy after initial surgery, and diagnosis of coronary artery disease). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using landmark survival, propensity score modeling, and the impact of poor Karnofsky Performance Status. RESULTS: We identified 2603 patients (BEV, n = 597; NBEV, n = 2006). In the BEV cohort, most patients were Caucasian males and were younger with fewer comorbidities and more initial resections. In the primary analysis, the BEV cohort showed a lower risk of death compared with the NBEV cohort (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.89; P < .01). The survival benefit of BEV appeared independent of the number of temozolomide cycles or frontline treatment with radiotherapy and temozolomide. CONCLUSION: BEV exposure was associated with a lower risk of death, providing evidence that there might be a potential benefit of BEV in elderly patients with glioblastoma.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of bevacizumab (BEV) in elderly patients with glioblastoma remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of BEV on survival in this patient population using the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study analyzed SEER-Medicare data for patients (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with glioblastoma from 2006 to 2011. Two cohorts were constructed: one comprised patients who had received BEV (BEV cohort); the other comprised patients who had received any anticancer treatment other than BEV (NBEV cohort). The primary analysis used a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to compare overall survival in the BEV and NBEV cohorts with initiation of BEV as a time-dependent variable, adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, region, race, radiotherapy after initial surgery, and diagnosis of coronary artery disease). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using landmark survival, propensity score modeling, and the impact of poor Karnofsky Performance Status. RESULTS: We identified 2603 patients (BEV, n = 597; NBEV, n = 2006). In the BEV cohort, most patients were Caucasian males and were younger with fewer comorbidities and more initial resections. In the primary analysis, the BEV cohort showed a lower risk of death compared with the NBEV cohort (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.89; P < .01). The survival benefit of BEV appeared independent of the number of temozolomide cycles or frontline treatment with radiotherapy and temozolomide. CONCLUSION: BEV exposure was associated with a lower risk of death, providing evidence that there might be a potential benefit of BEV in elderly patients with glioblastoma.
Authors: Roger Stupp; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Michael Weller; Barbara Fisher; Martin J B Taphoorn; Karl Belanger; Alba A Brandes; Christine Marosi; Ulrich Bogdahn; Jürgen Curschmann; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Thierry Gorlia; Anouk Allgeier; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; René O Mirimanoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: P L Nghiemphu; W Liu; Y Lee; T Than; C Graham; A Lai; R M Green; W B Pope; L M Liau; P S Mischel; S F Nelson; R Elashoff; T F Cloughesy Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 9.910
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: 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: Kunal S Patel; Richard G Everson; Jingwen Yao; Catalina Raymond; Jodi Goldman; Jacob Schlossman; Joseph Tsung; Caleb Tan; Whitney B Pope; Matthew S Ji; Nhung T Nguyen; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 4.654