Search

Purpose: Symptomatic epilepsy is a common complication of glioblastoma and requires pharmacotherapy. Several uncontrolled retrospective case series and a post hoc analysis of the registration trial for temozolomide indicated an association between valproic acid (VPA) use and improved survival outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma., Patients and Methods: To confirm the hypothesis suggested above, a combined analysis of survival association of antiepileptic drug use at the start of chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide was performed in the pooled patient cohort (n = 1,869) of four contemporary randomized clinical trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: AVAGlio (Avastin in Glioblastoma; NCT00943826), CENTRIC (Cilengitide, Temozolomide, and Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma and Methylated Gene Promoter Status; NCT00689221), CORE (Cilengitide, Temozolomide, and Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma and Unmethylated Gene Promoter Status; NCT00813943), and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0825 (NCT00884741). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between: (1) any VPA use and no VPA use at baseline or (2) VPA use both at start of and still after chemoradiotherapy. Results of Cox regression models stratified by trial and adjusted for baseline prognostic factors were analyzed. The same analyses were performed with levetiracetam (LEV)., Results: VPA use at start of chemoradiotherapy was not associated with improved PFS or OS compared with all other patients pooled (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.07; P = .241; OS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.15; P = .633). Furthermore, PFS and OS of patients taking VPA both at start of and still after chemoradiotherapy were not different from those without antiepileptic drug use at both time points (PFS: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.15; P = .467; OS: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.40; P = .440). Similarly, no association with improved outcomes was observed for LEV use., Conclusion: The results of this analysis do not justify the use of VPA or LEV for reasons other than seizure control in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma outside clinical trials., Competing Interests: Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found in the article online at www.jco.org. Author contributions are found at the end of this article., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: The addition of PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine) chemotherapy to radiotherapy (RT) for patients with WHO grade 2 glioma improves progression-free survival (PFS). The effect of therapy intensification on cognitive function (CF) remains a concern in this population with substantial long-term survival., Patients and Methods: A total of 251 patients with WHO grade 2 glioma age ≥ 40 years with any extent of resection or age < 40 years with subtotal resection/biopsy were randomly assigned to RT (54 Gy) or RT plus PCV. We observed 111 patients age < 40 years with gross total resection. CF was assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline and years 1, 2, 3, and 5., Results: Overall, few patients experienced significant decline in MMSE score. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients experiencing MMSE score decline between the randomized study arms at any time point. Both study arms experienced a significant gain in average MMSE score longitudinally over time, with no difference between arms., Conclusion: The MMSE is a relatively insensitive tool, and subtle changes in CF may have been missed. However, the addition of PCV to RT did not result in significantly higher rates of MMSE score decline than RT alone through 5 years of follow-up. Patients in both randomly assigned arms experienced a statistically significant average MMSE score increase over time, with no difference between arms. The addition of PCV chemotherapy to RT improves PFS without excessive CF detriment over RT alone for patients with low-grade glioma.

A Message From Asco's President: Since its founding in 1964, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has been committed to improving cancer outcomes through research and the delivery of quality care. Research is the bedrock of discovering better treatments--providing hope to the millions of individuals who face a cancer diagnosis each year. The studies featured in "Clinical Cancer Advances 2013: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology" represent the invaluable contributions of thousands of patients who participate in clinical trials and the scientists who conduct basic and clinical research. The insights described in this report, such as how cancers hide from the immune system and why cancers may become resistant to targeted drugs, enable us to envision a future in which cancer will be even more controllable and preventable. The scientific process is thoughtful, deliberate, and sometimes slow, but each advance, while helping patients, now also points toward new research questions and unexplored opportunities. Both dramatic and subtle breakthroughs occur so that progress against cancer typically builds over many years. Success requires vision, persistence, and a long-term commitment to supporting cancer research and training. Our nation's longstanding investment in federally funded cancer research has contributed significantly to a growing array of effective new treatments and a much deeper understanding of the drivers of cancer. But despite this progress, our position as a world leader in advancing medical knowledge and our ability to attract the most promising and talented investigators are now threatened by an acute problem: Federal funding for cancer research has steadily eroded over the past decade, and only 15% of the ever-shrinking budget is actually spent on clinical trials. This dismal reality threatens the pace of progress against cancer and undermines our ability to address the continuing needs of our patients. Despite this extremely challenging economic environment, we continue to make progress. Maintaining and accelerating that progress require that we keep our eyes on the future and pursue a path that builds on the stunning successes of the past. We must continue to show our policymakers the successes in cancer survival and quality of life (QOL) they have enabled, emphasizing the need to sustain our national investment in the remarkably productive US cancer research enterprise. We must also look to innovative methods for transforming how we care for-and learn from-patients with cancer. Consider, for example, that fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer currently participate in clinical trials. What if we were able to draw lessons from the other 95%? This possibility led ASCO this year to launch CancerLinQ, a groundbreaking health information technology initiative that will provide physicians with access to vast quantities of clinical data about real-world patients and help achieve higher quality, higher value cancer care. As you read the following pages, I hope our collective progress against cancer over the past year inspires you. More importantly, I hope the pride you feel motivates you to help us accelerate the pace of scientific advancement. Clifford A. Hudis, MD, FACP President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Purpose: Radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide is the standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation status may be an important determinant of treatment response. Dose-dense (DD) temozolomide results in prolonged depletion of MGMT in blood mononuclear cells and possibly in tumor. This trial tested whether DD temozolomide improves overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM., Patients and Methods: This phase III trial enrolled patients older than age 18 years with a Karnofsky performance score of ≥ 60 with adequate tissue. Stratification included clinical factors and tumor MGMT methylation status. Patients were randomly assigned to standard temozolomide (arm 1) or DD temozolomide (arm 2) for 6 to 12 cycles. The primary end point was OS. Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of MGMT status., Results: A total of 833 patients were randomly assigned to either arm 1 or arm 2 (1,173 registered). No statistically significant difference was observed between arms for median OS (16.6 v 14.9 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P = .63) or median PFS (5.5 v 6.7 months; HR, 0.87; P = .06). Efficacy did not differ by methylation status. MGMT methylation was associated with improved OS (21.2 v 14 months; HR, 1.74; P < .001), PFS (8.7 v 5.7 months; HR, 1.63; P < .001), and response (P = .012). There was increased grade ≥ 3 toxicity in arm 2 (34% v 53%; P < .001), mostly lymphopenia and fatigue., Conclusion: This study did not demonstrate improved efficacy for DD temozolomide for newly diagnosed GBM, regardless of methylation status. However, it did confirm the prognostic significance of MGMT methylation. Feasibility of large-scale accrual, prospective tumor collection, and molecular stratification was demonstrated.

Purpose: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 0525 tested whether dose-intensifying temozolomide versus standard chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Tests of neurocognitive function (NCF) and symptoms (using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor module; MDASI-BT) and of quality of life (European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ] -C30/BN20) examined the net clinical benefit (NCB) of therapy., Patients and Methods: NCF tests (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, Trail Making Test, and Controlled Oral Word Association), MDASI-BT, and EORTC QLQ-C30/BN20 were completed in a subset of patients. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression modeling determined the prognostic value of baseline and early change from baseline to cycle 1 for OS and PFS. Two-sample proportional test statistic was used to evaluate differences between treatments (dose-dense v standard-dose) on NCB measures from baseline to cycle 4 in stable patients., Results: Overall, 182 patients participated in the study. Baseline NCF tests and the physical functioning quality of life scale were associated with OS and PFS. Baseline to cycle 1 in all NCB components were associated with OS and PFS. There was greater deterioration in the dose-dense arm from baseline to cycle 4 in the Global Health and Motor Function subscales (EORTC QLQ-C30/BN20) as well as in overall symptom burden, overall symptom interference, and activity-related symptom interference subscales (MDASI-BT). There were no between-arm differences in NCF., Conclusion: Longitudinal collection of NCB measures is feasible in cooperative group studies and provides an added dimension to standard outcome measures. Greater adverse symptom burden and functional interference, as well as decreased global health and motor function were observed in patients randomly assigned to the dose-dense arm. Baseline and early change in NCB measures were associated with decreased rates of survival.