Search

Systemic agents investigated for treatment of glioblastoma. (DOCX 19 kb)

The records of 208.777 (100%) clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were downloaded on the 19th of February 2016. Phase II and III trials including patients with glioblastoma were selected for further classification and analysis. Based on the disease settings, trials were classified into three groups: newly diagnosed glioblastoma, recurrent disease and trials with no differentiation according to disease setting. Furthermore, we categorized trials according to the experimental interventions, the primary sponsor, the source of financial support and trial design elements. Trends were evaluated using the autoregressive integrated moving average model. Two hundred sixteen (0.1%) trials were selected for further analysis. Academic centers (investigator initiated trials) were recorded as primary sponsors in 56.9% of trials, followed by industry 25.9%. Industry was the leading source of monetary support for the selected trials in 44.4%, followed by 25% of trials with primarily academic financial support. The number of newly initiated trials between 2005 and 2015 shows a positive trend, mainly through an increase in phase II trials, whereas phase III trials show a negative trend. The vast majority of trials evaluate forms of different systemic treatments (91.2%). In total, one hundred different molecular entities or biologicals were identified. Of those, 60% were involving drugs specifically designed for central nervous system malignancies. Trials that specifically address radiotherapy, surgery, imaging and other therapeutic or diagnostic methods appear to be rare. Current research in glioblastoma is mainly driven or sponsored by industry, academic medical oncologists and neuro-oncologists, with the majority of trials evaluating forms of systemic therapies. Few trials reach phase III. Imaging, radiation therapy and surgical procedures are underrepresented in current trials portfolios. Optimization in research portfolio for glioblastoma is needed.

PURPOSE Knowledge about the localization and outcome of iatrogenic dissection (ID) during endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is limited. We aimed to determine the frequency, clinical aspects and morphology of ID in endovascular AIS treatment and to identify predictors of this complication. METHODS Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) of ID carried out during endovascular treatment between January 2000 and March 2012 have been re-evaluated. The ID localization and morphology were analyzed and related to the interventional techniques. Baseline clinical and radiological findings, treatment modality and outcome were compared with patients without ID. RESULTS Out of 866 patients 18 (2%) suffered an ID (44% female, median age 64 years). Localization was extracranial in 15 (83%, 14 internal carotid artery and 1 vertebral artery) and intracranial in 3 (17%; 1 vertebrobasilar dissection and 2 in the anterior circulation). Of the IDs 5 (28%) resulted in a high-degree, 3 (17%) in a moderate, 5 (28%) in a mild and 5 (28%) in no stenosis and 8 IDs were stented in the acute phase. At 3 months 7 (42%) patients had a favorable outcome (modified Rankin score mRS ≤ 2) and 6 (33%) patients had died. Patients with ID had a different stroke etiology (p = 0.041), were more likely to be smokers (44% versus 19%, p = 0.015) and were more likely to be treated with mechanical thrombectomy (100% versus 60%, p < 0.001). Although two ID patients had relevant complications, the outcome did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION The occurrence of ID is a rare complication of endovascular AIS treatment associated with smoking and mechanical thrombectomy.