Search

Background: In the EORTC 1410/INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody-drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M, ABT-414) in patients with recurrent EGFR-amplified glioblastoma, the primary end-point (overall survival) was not met, and the drug had ocular dose-limiting toxicity. This study reports results from the prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and neurological deterioration-free survival (NDFS) exploratory analysis., Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 260) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks with oral temozolomide (TMZ) 150 mg/m 2 , Depatux-M alone, or TMZ or oral lomustine (CCNU) 110 mg/m 2 (TMZ/CCNU). HRQoL outcomes were recorded using the EORTC core Quality of Life QLQ-C30, and brain cancer-specific QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and month 6, and changes from baseline to each time point were calculated. NDFS was defined as time to first deterioration in World Health Organisation performance status., Results: Compliance with HRQoL was 88.1% at baseline and decreased to 37.9% at month 6. Differences from baseline between Depatux-M arms and TMZ/CCNU in global health/QoL status throughout treatment did not reach clinical relevance (≥10 points). Self-reported visual disorders deteriorated to a clinically relevant extent with Depatux-M arms versus TMZ/CCNU at all timepoints (mean differences range: 24.6-35.1 points). Changes from baseline for other HRQoL scales and NDFS were generally similar between treatment arms., Conclusions: Depatux-M had no impact on HRQoL and NDFS in patients with EGFR-amplified recurrent glioblastoma, except for more visual disorders, an expected side-effect of the study drug., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02343406., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Linda Dirven, Sarah Nuyens, Maarten Spruyt, Thierry Gorlia, Corneel Coens and Jaap C. Reijneveld have nothing to disclose. Paul M. J. Clement received study budget funds from AstraZeneca; was an advisory board member for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD and Vifor Pharma. Marica Eoli received consulting fees from AbbVie. Juan M. Sepulveda-Sanchez reports personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie; a grant from Pfizer as principal investigator; personal fees and non-financial support from Celgene; non-financial support from Ipsen; and personal fees from Astellas. Annemiek M. E. Walenkamp received research grants from IPSEN and Novartis; was an advisory board member for IPSEN, Karyopharm, Novartis and Polyphor; and received study budget funds from AbbVie, BMS, Genzyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics and Roche. Jean Sebastien Frenel has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Enrico Franceschi was an advisory board member for Celgene and Karyopharm. Michael Weller has received research grants from AbbVie, Adastra, Merck, Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck (EMD) and Novocure; and honoraria for lectures or advisory board participation or consulting from AbbVie, Basilea, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celgene, Medac, Merck, Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck (EMD), Nerviano Medical Sciences, Novartis, Orbus, Philogen, Roche and Tocagen. Olivier Chinot reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from immatics, non-financial support from BMS, non-financial support from Servier, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, outside the submitted work. Filip Y. F. L. De Vos received research grants from Novartis. Nicholas Whenham has received consulting fees from Bayer and Janssen. Paul Sanghera was an advisory board member for AbbVie and Roche. Jim Looman, Madan G. Kundu and Jan Peter de Geus are AbbVie employees and may own stock. Vassilis Golfinopoulos received research funding from AbbVie during the conduct of the study. Martin J. van den Bent received consulting fees from AbbVie, Agios, Bayer, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Carthera, Genenta, Karyopharm and Nerviano., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background Relevance of antiangiogenic treatment with bevacizumab in patients with glioblastoma is controversial because progression-free survival benefit did not translate into an overall survival (OS) benefit in randomized phase III trials. Purpose To perform longitudinal characterization of intratumoral angiogenesis and oxygenation by using dynamic susceptibility contrast agent-enhanced (DSC) MRI and evaluate its potential for predicting outcome from administration of bevacizumab. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the prospective randomized phase II/III European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26101 trial conducted between October 2011 and December 2015 in 596 patients with first recurrence of glioblastoma, the subset of patients with availability of anatomic MRI and DSC MRI at baseline and first follow-up was analyzed. Patients were allocated into those administered bevacizumab (hereafter, the BEV group; either bevacizumab monotherapy or bevacizumab with lomustine) and those not administered bevacizumab (hereafter, the non-BEV group with lomustine monotherapy). Contrast-enhanced tumor volume, noncontrast-enhanced T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal abnormality volume, Gaussian-normalized relative cerebral blood volume (nrCBV), Gaussian-normalized relative blood flow (nrCBF), and tumor metabolic rate of oxygen (nTMRO 2 ) was quantified. The predictive ability of these imaging parameters was assessed with multivariable Cox regression and formal interaction testing. Results A total of 254 of 596 patients were evaluated (mean age, 57 years ± 11; 155 men; 161 in the BEV group and 93 in non-BEV group). Progression-free survival was longer in the BEV group (3.7 months; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.0, 4.2) compared with the non-BEV group (2.5 months; 95% CI: 1.5, 2.9; P = .01), whereas OS was not different ( P = .15). The nrCBV decreased for the BEV group (-16.3%; interquartile range [IQR], -39.5% to 12.0%; P = .01), but not for the non-BEV group (1.2%; IQR, -17.9% to 23.3%; P = .19) between baseline and first follow-up. An identical pattern was observed for both nrCBF and nTMRO 2 values. Contrast-enhanced tumor and noncontrast-enhanced T2 FLAIR signal abnormality volumes decreased for the BEV group (-66% [IQR, -83% to -35%] and -33% [IQR, -71% to -5%], respectively; P < .001 for both), whereas they increased for the non-BEV group (30% [IQR, -17% to 98%], P = .001; and 10% [IQR, -13% to 82%], P = .02, respectively) between baseline and first follow-up. None of the assessed MRI parameters were predictive for OS in the BEV group. Conclusion Bevacizumab treatment decreased tumor volumes, angiogenesis, and oxygenation, thereby reflecting its effectiveness for extending progression-free survival; however, these parameters were not predictive of overall survival (OS), which highlighted the challenges of identifying patients that derive an OS benefit from bevacizumab. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Dillon in this issue.

Glioblastomas are malignant brain tumors with poor prognosis. Lately, data from clinical studies assessing the role of co-medications in different cancer types suggested reduced mortality and potential anti-tumor activity for statins, angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (sartans). Here, we analysed the association of co-treatment with statins, ACEI or sartans with outcome in a cohort of 810 patients enrolled in the phase III CENTRIC and phase II CORE trials on the role of the integrin antagonist, cilengitide, in newly diagnosed glioblastoma with or without O 6 -methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed for each medication in the pooled patient group. No association was found for co-medication with either drug for PFS or OS. Median OS was 22.1 (statins) versus 22.2 (control) months (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.39, p = 0.69), 20.4 (ACEI) versus 22.6 (control) months (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.96-1.62, p = 0.10), and 21.7 (sartans) versus 22.3 (control) months (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.21, p = 0.38). None of the comparisons showed a signal for different PFS or OS when analyses were controlled for MGMT promoter methylation or treatment group (TMZ/RT → TMZ vs. RT + CIL + TMZ → TMZ + CIL). This secondary analysis of two large glioblastoma trials thus was unable to detect evidence for an association of the use of statins, ACEI or sartans with outcome in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. These data challenge the rationale for prospective studies on the possible role of these non-tumor-specific drugs within the concept of drug repurposing.

Purpose: NovoTTF-100A is a portable device delivering low-intensity, intermediate frequency electric fields via non-invasive, transducer arrays. Tumour Treatment Fields (TTF), a completely new therapeutic modality in cancer treatment, physically interfere with cell division., Methods: Phase III trial of chemotherapy-free treatment of NovoTTF (20-24h/day) versus active chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Primary end-point was improvement of overall survival., Results: Patients (median age 54 years (range 23-80), Karnofsky performance status 80% (range 50-100) were randomised to TTF alone (n=120) or active chemotherapy control (n=117). Number of prior treatments was two (range 1-6). Median survival was 6.6 versus 6.0 months (hazard ratio 0.86 [95% CI 0.66-1.12]; p=0.27), 1-year survival rate was 20% and 20%, progression-free survival rate at 6 months was 21.4% and 15.1% (p=0.13), respectively in TTF and active control patients. Responses were more common in the TTF arm (14% versus 9.6%, p=0.19). The TTF-related adverse events were mild (14%) to moderate (2%) skin rash beneath the transducer arrays. Severe adverse events occurred in 6% and 16% (p=0.022) of patients treated with TTF and chemotherapy, respectively. Quality of life analyses favoured TTF therapy in most domains., Conclusions: This is the first controlled trial evaluating an entirely novel cancer treatment modality delivering electric fields rather than chemotherapy. No improvement in overall survival was demonstrated, however efficacy and activity with this chemotherapy-free treatment device appears comparable to chemotherapy regimens that are commonly used for recurrent glioblastoma. Toxicity and quality of life clearly favoured TTF., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)