Carmen Balaña1, Anna Estival1, Estela Pineda1, Juan Sepúlveda1, Carles Mesía1, Sonia Del Barco1, Miguel Gil-Gil1, Max Hardy1, Alberto Indacoechea1, Andrés Felipe Cardona1. 1. Medical Oncology Service, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, IGTP, Badalona 08916, Spain (C.B., A.E., M.H., A.I.); Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona 08036, Spain (E.P.); Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid 28041, Spain (J.S.); Medical Oncology Service, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Hospital Duran i Reynals - IDIBELL, Hospitalet de Llobregat 08907, Spain (C.M., M.G.-G.); Medical Oncology Service, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Hospital Trueta, Girona 17007, Spain (S.d.B.); Clinical and Translational Oncology Group, Institute of Oncology, Clínica del Country, Bogotá, Bogotá c. 318, Colombia (A.F.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma is controversial. Here we show data on patients who responded to bevacizumab, then stopped bevacizumab for any reason other than progression and were rechallenged with bevacizumab at the time of subsequent progression. METHODS: This retrospective study included 28 patients, classified in 2 cohorts: those for whom the first exposure to bevacizumab (BEV-1) was first-line treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (Bev-F; N = 12) and those for whom BEV-1 was second- or third-line treatment for recurrent disease after standard treatment (Bev-S; N = 16). RESULTS: All patients received standard radiotherapy plus temozolomide. Bev-F patients also received concomitant bevacizumab. All 28 patients received a total of 57 treatment lines with bevacizumab (12 first-line and 45 second- or further-line). Twenty-nine lines were rechallenges (BEV-2 [N = 26] or BEV-3 [N = 3]). Objective response to rechallenge was 58.6% and clinical benefit was 89.6%. Overall survival (OS) was 55 months for RPA class IV and 26.7 months for RPA class V patients (P = .01). OS was 26.7 months for Bev-F patients and 52.1 months for Bev-S patients (P = .004). Post-progression survival was 20 months for Bev-F patients and 39.6 months for Bev-S patients (HR = 0.26; P = .007). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to examine the impact of a bevacizumab rechallenge in glioblastoma patients who had responded to previous bevacizumab treatment but who stopped before progression. Our findings indicate that these patients can attain a second response or clinical benefit from re-introduction of bevacizumab. The potential benefit from intermittent versus continuous treatment warrants comparison in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: The use of bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma is controversial. Here we show data on patients who responded to bevacizumab, then stopped bevacizumab for any reason other than progression and were rechallenged with bevacizumab at the time of subsequent progression. METHODS: This retrospective study included 28 patients, classified in 2 cohorts: those for whom the first exposure to bevacizumab (BEV-1) was first-line treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (Bev-F; N = 12) and those for whom BEV-1 was second- or third-line treatment for recurrent disease after standard treatment (Bev-S; N = 16). RESULTS: All patients received standard radiotherapy plus temozolomide. Bev-F patients also received concomitant bevacizumab. All 28 patients received a total of 57 treatment lines with bevacizumab (12 first-line and 45 second- or further-line). Twenty-nine lines were rechallenges (BEV-2 [N = 26] or BEV-3 [N = 3]). Objective response to rechallenge was 58.6% and clinical benefit was 89.6%. Overall survival (OS) was 55 months for RPA class IV and 26.7 months for RPA class V patients (P = .01). OS was 26.7 months for Bev-F patients and 52.1 months for Bev-S patients (P = .004). Post-progression survival was 20 months for Bev-F patients and 39.6 months for Bev-S patients (HR = 0.26; P = .007). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to examine the impact of a bevacizumab rechallenge in glioblastoma patients who had responded to previous bevacizumab treatment but who stopped before progression. Our findings indicate that these patients can attain a second response or clinical benefit from re-introduction of bevacizumab. The potential benefit from intermittent versus continuous treatment warrants comparison in clinical trials.
Authors: Tracy T Batchelor; A Gregory Sorensen; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Wei-Ting Zhang; Dan G Duda; Kenneth S Cohen; Kevin R Kozak; Daniel P Cahill; Poe-Jou Chen; Mingwang Zhu; Marek Ancukiewicz; Maciej M Mrugala; Scott Plotkin; Jan Drappatz; David N Louis; Percy Ivy; David T Scadden; Thomas Benner; Jay S Loeffler; Patrick Y Wen; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael R Mancuso; Rachel Davis; Scott M Norberg; Shaun O'Brien; Barbara Sennino; Tsutomu Nakahara; Virginia J Yao; Tetsuichiro Inai; Peter Brooks; Bruce Freimark; David R Shalinsky; Dana D Hu-Lowe; Donald M McDonald Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 14.808
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: Dietmar Krex; Barbara Klink; Christian Hartmann; Andreas von Deimling; Torsten Pietsch; Matthias Simon; Michael Sabel; Joachim P Steinbach; Oliver Heese; Guido Reifenberger; Michael Weller; Gabriele Schackert Journal: Brain Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 13.501
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: Eudocia C Quant; Andrew D Norden; Jan Drappatz; Alona Muzikansky; Lisa Doherty; Debra Lafrankie; Abigail Ciampa; Santosh Kesari; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Walid S Kamoun; Carsten D Ley; Christian T Farrar; Annique M Duyverman; Johanna Lahdenranta; Delphine A Lacorre; Tracy T Batchelor; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Dan G Duda; Lance L Munn; Dai Fukumura; A Gregory Sorensen; Rakesh K Jain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sith Sathornsumetee; Yiting Cao; Jennifer E Marcello; James E Herndon; Roger E McLendon; Annick Desjardins; Henry S Friedman; Mark W Dewhirst; James J Vredenburgh; Jeremy N Rich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Liang Yen Liu; Matthew S Ji; Nhung T Nguyen; Frances E Chow; Donna M Molaie; Sean T Pianka; Richard M Green; Linda M Liau; Benjamin M Ellingson; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Timothy F Cloughesy; Albert Lai Journal: CNS Oncol Date: 2019-07-11