Search

Background: Glioblastoma is the most aggressive primary brain cancer with a poor prognosis. Despite numerous studies in the past 17 years, effective treatment options for glioblastoma remain limited. In this study, we aimed to identify and compare phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma in terms of efficacy and baseline characteristics., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma in adult patients. The target population included adult patients aged 18 years and above (younger cohort) and patients ≥60 years of age (elderly cohort). The search results were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria, and the included trials were analyzed for their study design, baseline characteristics, and survival results., Results: Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria in the younger cohort. Of these, three reported a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS), including the EORTC/NCIC study (NCT00006353), EF-14 (NCT00916409), and CeTeG (NCT01149109). Of the 11 trials, eight were open-label randomized trials, including all of the positive ones, while three negative trials employed treatment blinding and a placebo control. The baseline characteristics of the trials [such as extent of resection, age, gender, and O (6)-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status] did not significantly differ between positive and negative trials. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status was analyzed in only two trials, with a small percentage of IDH-mutated tumors in each. Additionally, three more trials in the elderly cohort showed a statistically significant improvement of OS, the NOA-08 trial, the ISRCTN81470623-trial by Malmström et al. and NCT00482677-trial by Perry et al. Their baseline characteristics and implications are also analyzed., Conclusion: This analysis of phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma conducted since 2005 showed that the majority of trials did not result in a significant improvement in OS. Among the trials included in this analysis, only the EORTC/NCIC, EF-14, and CeTeG studies demonstrated a positive OS outcome in the younger cohort., Competing Interests: Christoph Oster received honoraria from Horizon. He also received travel support from Novocure. Lazaros Lazaridis, and Teresa Schmidt received honoraria and travel support from Novocure. Martin Glas has received research grant from Novocure. He has received honoraria from Roche, Seagan, Servier, Novartis, UCB, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, Medac, Merck and Novocure. He has received travel support from Novocure and Medac. Sied Kebir has Consulting/advisory role to Novocure. He has received travel support from Merck and Novocure. He got honoraria from Biogen, Merck and Novocure. Björn Scheffler is supported by the German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and the DFG-CRU337. Christoph Kleinschnitz, Sarina Agkatsev and Ulrich Sure declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: Standard of care treatment options at glioblastoma relapse are still not well defined. Few studies indicate that the combination of trofosfamide plus etoposide may be feasible in pediatric glioblastoma patients. In this retrospective analysis, we determined tolerability and feasibility of combined trofosfamide plus etoposide treatment at disease recurrence of adult glioblastoma patients., Methods: We collected clinicopathological data from adult progressive glioblastoma patients treated with the combination of trofosfamide and etoposide for more than four weeks (one course). A cohort of patients receiving empiric treatment at the investigators' discretion balanced for tumor entity and canonical prognostic factors served as control., Results: A total of n = 22 progressive glioblastoma patients were eligible for this analysis. Median progression-free survival (3.1 vs 2.3 months, HR: 1.961, 95% CI: 0.9724-3.9560, P = .0274) and median overall survival (9.0 vs 5.7 months, HR: 4.687, 95% CI: 2.034-10.800, P = .0003) were significantly prolonged compared to the control cohort ( n = 17). In a multivariable Cox regression analysis, treatment with trofosfamide plus etoposide emerged as a significant prognostic marker regarding progression-free and overall survival. We observed high-grade adverse events in n = 16/22 (73%) patients with hematotoxicity comprising the majority of adverse events ( n = 15/16, 94%). Lymphopenia was by far the most commonly observed hematotoxic adverse event ( n = 11/15, 73%)., Conclusions: This study provides first indication that the combination of trofosfamide plus etoposide is safe in adult glioblastoma patients. The observed survival outcomes might suggest potential beneficial effects. Our data provide a reasonable rationale for follow-up of a larger cohort in a prospective trial., Competing Interests: Teresa Schmidt received honoraria and travel support from Novocure. Björn Scheffler is supported by the German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and the DFG-CRU337. Sied Kebir received honoraria and travel support from Novocure. Martin Glas reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, UCB, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Novocure, Bayer, Janssen-Cilag, Medac, Merck, Kyowa Kirin, travel support from Novocure and Medac, research grant from Novocure. Lazaros Lazaridis received honoraria and travel support from Novocure. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: The randomized phase 3 CeTeG/NOA-09 trial assessed whether CCNU plus temozolomide was superior to temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma patients. Survival was significantly improved from 31.4 months (temozolomide) to 48.1 months (CCNU plus temozolomide). In view of this encouraging data, we assessed safety and efficacy of this regimen under real-life conditions., Methods: We retrospectively collected clinical and radiographic data from adult newly diagnosed MGMT promoter methylated IDH wildtype glioblastoma patients from five neuro-oncology centers in Germany. For inclusion in our analysis, treatment with CCNU and temozolomide had to be performed for at least six weeks (one course)., Results: Seventy patients were included. Median progression-free survival was 14.4 months and median overall survival 33.8 months. Patients with TTFields treatment for at least 8 weeks and CCNU plus temozolomide ( n  = 22, 31%) had a prolonged progression-free survival compared to those with TTFields treatment for less than eight weeks ( n  = 48, 69%) (21.5 versus 11.2 months; P  = .0105). In a multivariable Cox regression analysis, TTFields treatment for eight weeks or longer together with CCNU plus temozolomide and a Karnofsky performance score ≥ 90% were independent prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival. Pseudoprogression occurred in n  = 16 (33%) of investigated n  = 49 (70%) patients. In n  = 31 (44%) patients high-grade hematotoxicity was observed., Conclusions: The results from this multicentric trial indicate that-under real-life conditions-toxicity and survival estimates are comparable to the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial. TTFields therapy for at least eight weeks in combination with this regimen was independently associated with prolonged survival., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: The GLARIUS trial, which investigated the efficacy of bevacizumab (BEV)/irinotecan (IRI) compared with standard temozolomide in the first-line therapy of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT)-nonmethylated glioblastoma, showed that progression-free survival was significantly prolonged by BEV/IRI, while overall survival was similar in both arms. The present report focuses on quality of life (QoL) and Karnofsky performance score (KPS) during the whole course of the disease., Methods: Patients (n = 170) received standard radiotherapy and were randomized (2:1) for BEV/IRI or standard temozolomide. At least every 3 months KPS was determined and QoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item Core Quality of Life and 20-item Brain Neoplasm questionnaires. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model evaluated differences in the course of QoL and KPS over time. Also, the time to first deterioration and the time to postprogression deterioration were analyzed separately., Results: In all dimensions of QoL and KPS, GEE analyses and time to first deterioration analyses did not detect significant differences between the treatment arms. At progression, 82% of patients receiving second-line therapy in the standard arm received BEV second-line therapy. For the dimensions of motor dysfunction and headaches, time to postprogression deterioration was prolonged in the standard arm receiving crossover second-line BEV in the vast majority of patients at the time of evaluation., Conclusions: GLARIUS did not find indications for a BEV-induced detrimental effect on QoL in first-line therapy of MGMT-nonmethylated GBM patients. Moreover, GLARIUS provided some indirect corroborative data supporting the notion that BEV may have beneficial effects upon QoL in relapsed GBM.