Xing Ren1, Di Ai2, Tong Li3, Lei Xia4, Lingzhi Sun5. 1. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China. 2. College of Health, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China. 3. The First Clinical Medical College, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China. 4. School of Energy and Power Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, China. 5. Department of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite surgical and chemotherapeutical treatment options, the prognosis for glioblastoma (GBM) remains poor. Some studies have found that using lomustine plus bevacizumab to treat GBM can prolong overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of the two drugs in combination treatment of GBM using a meta-analysis of the existing literature to help settle the ongoing debate. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the effectiveness of lomustine plus bevacizumab in GBM literature, updated on June 6, 2020. The main outcomes analyzed included PFS and OS; the effects of this drug combination on the 6-month PFS, which represents the percentage of patients who had PFS for 6 months, were also analyzed. All the data were pooled: OS and PFS with the mean difference (MD) and 6-month PFS with the risk ratio (RR). Because there were different control groups and dose groups, two subgroup analyses were run to ensure they were comparable. All statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager Version 5.3 software. Results: Six clinical trials were identified which included 1,095 patients (treatment group: 516; control group: 579). The group treated with lomustine and bevacizumab showed an improvement in OS (MD =1.37; 95% CI, 0.49-2.25; p = 0.002), PFS (MD = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34; p < 0.00001), and 6-month PFS (RR = 2.29; 95% CI, 1.43-3.65; p = 0.0005). Two subgroup analyses of the main outcome, OS, show that the results of Control group A (p = 0.01) and Dose group 2 (p = 0.003) are significantly different from those of the other control or dose groups. Conclusion: This study shows that lomustine and bevacizumab can effectively increase OS, PFS, and 6-month PFS in patients with GBM. The encouraging results of the lomustine and bevacizumab combination therapy for GBM should be studied in more clinical trials in the future.
Introduction: Despite surgical and chemotherapeutical treatment options, the prognosis for glioblastoma (GBM) remains poor. Some studies have found that using lomustine plus bevacizumab to treat GBM can prolong overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of the two drugs in combination treatment of GBM using a meta-analysis of the existing literature to help settle the ongoing debate. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the effectiveness of lomustine plus bevacizumab in GBM literature, updated on June 6, 2020. The main outcomes analyzed included PFS and OS; the effects of this drug combination on the 6-month PFS, which represents the percentage of patients who had PFS for 6 months, were also analyzed. All the data were pooled: OS and PFS with the mean difference (MD) and 6-month PFS with the risk ratio (RR). Because there were different control groups and dose groups, two subgroup analyses were run to ensure they were comparable. All statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager Version 5.3 software. Results: Six clinical trials were identified which included 1,095 patients (treatment group: 516; control group: 579). The group treated with lomustine and bevacizumab showed an improvement in OS (MD =1.37; 95% CI, 0.49-2.25; p = 0.002), PFS (MD = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34; p < 0.00001), and 6-month PFS (RR = 2.29; 95% CI, 1.43-3.65; p = 0.0005). Two subgroup analyses of the main outcome, OS, show that the results of Control group A (p = 0.01) and Dose group 2 (p = 0.003) are significantly different from those of the other control or dose groups. Conclusion: This study shows that lomustine and bevacizumab can effectively increase OS, PFS, and 6-month PFS in patients with GBM. The encouraging results of the lomustine and bevacizumab combination therapy for GBM should be studied in more clinical trials in the future.
Authors: Shiao-Pei Weathers; Xiaosi Han; Diane D Liu; Charles A Conrad; Mark R Gilbert; Monica E Loghin; Barbara J O'Brien; Marta Penas-Prado; Vinay K Puduvalli; Ivo Tremont-Lukats; Rivka R Colen; W K Alfred Yung; John F de Groot Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-07-12 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: Wolfgang Wick; Vinay K Puduvalli; Marc C Chamberlain; Martin J van den Bent; Antoine F Carpentier; Lawrence M Cher; Warren Mason; Michael Weller; Shengyan Hong; Luna Musib; Astra M Liepa; Donald E Thornton; Howard A Fine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; James J Dignam; Terri S Armstrong; Jeffrey S Wefel; Deborah T Blumenthal; Michael A Vogelbaum; Howard Colman; Arnab Chakravarti; Stephanie Pugh; Minhee Won; Robert Jeraj; Paul D Brown; Kurt A Jaeckle; David Schiff; Volker W Stieber; David G Brachman; Maria Werner-Wasik; Ivo W Tremont-Lukats; Erik P Sulman; Kenneth D Aldape; Walter J Curran; Minesh P Mehta Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; Meihua Wang; Kenneth D Aldape; Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Kurt A Jaeckle; Terri S Armstrong; Jeffrey S Wefel; Minhee Won; Deborah T Blumenthal; Anita Mahajan; Christopher J Schultz; Sara Erridge; Brigitta Baumert; Kristen I Hopkins; Tzahala Tzuk-Shina; Paul D Brown; Arnab Chakravarti; Walter J Curran; Minesh P Mehta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J N Jakobsen; T Urup; K Grunnet; A Toft; M D Johansen; S H Poulsen; I J Christensen; A Muhic; H S Poulsen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 4.130
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: Lale Erdem-Eraslan; Martin J van den Bent; Youri Hoogstrate; Hina Naz-Khan; Andrew Stubbs; Peter van der Spek; René Böttcher; Ya Gao; Maurice de Wit; Walter Taal; Hendrika M Oosterkamp; Annemiek Walenkamp; Laurens V Beerepoot; Monique C J Hanse; Jan Buter; Aafke H Honkoop; Bronno van der Holt; René M Vernhout; Peter A E Sillevis Smitt; Johan M Kros; Pim J French Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Christina Schaub; Niklas Schäfer; Frederic Mack; Moritz Stuplich; Sied Kebir; Michael Niessen; Theophilos Tzaridis; Mohammed Banat; Hartmut Vatter; Andreas Waha; Ulrich Herrlinger; Martin Glas Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 4.553