Karan S Dixit1,2, Sean Sachdev3, Christina Amidei4, Priya Kumthekar5, Tim J Kruser3, Vinai Gondi3, Sean Grimm5, Rimas V Lukas5,6, Martin Kelly Nicholas6,7, Steven J Chmura8, Angela J Fought9, Minesh Mehta3,10, Jeffrey J Raizer5. 1. Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. karan.dixit@northwestern.edu. 2. Northwestern University, 710 N Lake Shore Drive, Abbott Hall Room 1123, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. karan.dixit@northwestern.edu. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 5. Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. 7. Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois-Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 8. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. 9. Department of Preventative Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, 33176, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Survival is dismal for bevacizumab refractory high-grade glioma patients. We prospectively investigated the efficacy of re-irradiation, bevacizumab, and temozolomide in bevacizumab-naïve and bevacizumab-exposed recurrent high-grade glioma, without volume limitations, in a single arm trial. METHODS: Recurrent high-grade glioma patients were stratified based on WHO grade (4 vs. < 4) and prior exposure to bevacizumab (yes vs. no). Eligible patients received radiation using a simultaneous integrated boost technique (55 Gy to enhancing disease, 45 Gy to non-enhancing disease in 25 fractions) with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks IV and temozolomide 75 mg/m2 daily followed by maintenance bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks and temozolomide 50 mg/m2 daily for 6 weeks then a 2 week holiday until progression. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Quality of life was studied using FACT-Br and FACT-fatigue scales. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled. The majority (n = 36, 67%) were bevacizumab pre-exposed GBM. Median OS for all patients was 8.5 months and 7.9 months for the bevacizumab pre-exposed GBM group. Patients ≥ 36 months from initial radiation had a median OS of 13.3 months compared to 7.5 months for those irradiated < 36 months earlier (p < 0.01). FACT-Br and FACT-Fatigue scores initially declined during radiation but returned to pretreatment baseline. Treatment was well tolerated with 5 patients experiencing > grade 3 lymphopenia and 2 with > grade 3 thrombocytopenia. No radiographic or clinical radiation necrosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Re-irradiation with bevacizumab and temozolomide is a safe and feasible salvage treatment for patients with large volume bevacizumab-refractory high-grade glioma. Patients further from their initial radiotherapy may derive greater benefit with this regimen.
PURPOSE: Survival is dismal for bevacizumab refractory high-grade glioma patients. We prospectively investigated the efficacy of re-irradiation, bevacizumab, and temozolomide in bevacizumab-naïve and bevacizumab-exposed recurrent high-grade glioma, without volume limitations, in a single arm trial. METHODS: Recurrent high-grade glioma patients were stratified based on WHO grade (4 vs. < 4) and prior exposure to bevacizumab (yes vs. no). Eligible patients received radiation using a simultaneous integrated boost technique (55 Gy to enhancing disease, 45 Gy to non-enhancing disease in 25 fractions) with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks IV and temozolomide 75 mg/m2 daily followed by maintenance bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks and temozolomide 50 mg/m2 daily for 6 weeks then a 2 week holiday until progression. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Quality of life was studied using FACT-Br and FACT-fatigue scales. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled. The majority (n = 36, 67%) were bevacizumab pre-exposed GBM. Median OS for all patients was 8.5 months and 7.9 months for the bevacizumab pre-exposed GBM group. Patients ≥ 36 months from initial radiation had a median OS of 13.3 months compared to 7.5 months for those irradiated < 36 months earlier (p < 0.01). FACT-Br and FACT-Fatigue scores initially declined during radiation but returned to pretreatment baseline. Treatment was well tolerated with 5 patients experiencing > grade 3 lymphopenia and 2 with > grade 3 thrombocytopenia. No radiographic or clinical radiation necrosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Re-irradiation with bevacizumab and temozolomide is a safe and feasible salvage treatment for patients with large volume bevacizumab-refractory high-grade glioma. Patients further from their initial radiotherapy may derive greater benefit with this regimen.
Authors: Roger Stupp; Eric T Wong; Andrew A Kanner; David Steinberg; Herbert Engelhard; Volkmar Heidecke; Eilon D Kirson; Sophie Taillibert; Frank Liebermann; Vladimir Dbalý; Zvi Ram; J Lee Villano; Nikolai Rainov; Uri Weinberg; David Schiff; Lara Kunschner; Jeffrey Raizer; Jerome Honnorat; Andrew Sloan; Mark Malkin; Joseph C Landolfi; Franz Payer; Maximilian Mehdorn; Robert J Weil; Susan C Pannullo; Manfred Westphal; Martin Smrcka; Lawrence Chin; Herwig Kostron; Silvia Hofer; Jeffrey Bruce; Rees Cosgrove; Nina Paleologous; Yoram Palti; Philip H Gutin Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Victor A Levin; Luc Bidaut; Ping Hou; Ashok J Kumar; Jeffrey S Wefel; B Nebiyou Bekele; Jai Grewal; Sujit Prabhu; Monica Loghin; Mark R Gilbert; Edward F Jackson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James R Perry; Karl Bélanger; Warren P Mason; Dorcas Fulton; Petr Kavan; Jacob Easaw; Claude Shields; Sarah Kirby; David R Macdonald; David D Eisenstat; Brian Thiessen; Peter Forsyth; Jean-François Pouliot Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F M Iwamoto; L E Abrey; K Beal; P H Gutin; M K Rosenblum; V E Reuter; L M DeAngelis; A B Lassman Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-10-13 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: Philip H Gutin; Fabio M Iwamoto; Kathryn Beal; Nimish A Mohile; Sasan Karimi; Bob L Hou; Stella Lymberis; Yoshiya Yamada; Jenghwa Chang; Lauren E Abrey Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Eric T Wong; Joshua Timmons; Amy Callahan; Lauren O'Loughlin; Bridget Giarusso; David C Alsop Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Denise Bernhardt; Laila König; Anca Grosu; Benedikt Wiestler; Stefan Rieken; Wolfgang Wick; Jens Gempt; Sandro M Krieg; Friederike Schmidt-Graf; Felix Sahm; Bernhard Meyer; Bernd J Krause; Cordula Petersen; Rainer Fietkau; Michael Thomas; Frank Giordano; Andrea Wittig-Sauerwein; Jürgen Debus; Ghazaleh Tabatabai; Peter Hau; Joachim Steinbach; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 4.033