Standards of care for treatment of recurrent glioblastoma—are we there yet?
TL;DR: Clinical trials investigating the treatment of recurrent or progressive glioblastoma with nitrosoureas, temozolomide, bevacizumab, and/or combinations of these agents from January 2006 to January 2012 are reviewed.
Abstract: Newly diagnosed glioblastoma is now commonly treated with surgery, if feasible, or biopsy, followed by radiation plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. The treatment of recurrent glioblastoma continues to be a moving target as new therapeutic principles enrich the standards of care for newly diagnosed disease. We reviewed PubMed and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts from January 2006 to January 2012 to identify clinical trials investigating the treatment of recurrent or progressive glioblastoma with nitrosoureas, temozolomide, bevacizumab, and/or combinations of these agents. At recurrence, a minority of patients are eligible for second surgery or reirradiation, based on appropriate patient selection. In temozolomide-pretreated patients, progression-free survival rates at 6 months of 20%-30% may be achieved either with nitrosoureas, temozolomide in various dosing regimens, or bevacizumab. Combination regimens among these agents or with other drugs have not produced evidence for superior activity but commonly produce more toxicity. More research is needed to better define patient profiles that predict benefit from the limited therapeutic options available after the current standard of care has failed.
Citations
More filters
University of Zurich1, Erasmus University Rotterdam2, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich3, Medical University of Vienna4, Umeå University5, Aix-Marseille University6, University Hospital Heidelberg7, VU University Amsterdam8, Institut Gustave Roussy9, University of Cambridge10, University of Portsmouth11, University of Bonn12, Leiden University13, University of Lausanne14, University of Hamburg15, University of Düsseldorf16, German Cancer Research Center17
TL;DR: The European Association for Neuro-Oncology guideline provides recommendations for the clinical care of adult patients with astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas, including glioblastomas, based on the 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system and on scientific developments since the 2014 guideline.
Abstract: The European Association for Neuro-Oncology guideline provides recommendations for the clinical care of adult patients with astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas, including glioblastomas. The guideline is based on the 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system and on scientific developments since the 2014 guideline. The recommendations focus on pathological and radiological diagnostics, and the main treatment modalities of surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. In this guideline we have also integrated the results from contemporary clinical trials that have changed clinical practice. The guideline aims to provide guidance for diagnostic and management decisions, while limiting unnecessary treatments and costs. The recommendations are a resource for professionals involved in the management of patients with glioma, for patients and caregivers, and for health-care providers in Europe. The implementation of this guideline requires multidisciplinary structures of care, and defined processes of diagnosis and treatment.
773 citations
TL;DR: The current standard of care for patients with glioblastoma includes surgery, temozolomide chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and corticosteroids, all of which have immunosuppressive effects; the implications for combining the current standard-of-care treatment modalities with immunotherapies, potential biomarkers of response, and future directions for gliOBlastoma immuno-oncology are examined.
Abstract: Glioma is the most common primary cancer of the central nervous system, and around 50% of patients present with the most aggressive form of the disease, glioblastoma. Conventional therapies, including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy (typically chemotherapy with temozolomide), have not resulted in major improvements in the survival outcomes of patients with glioblastoma. Reasons for this lack of progress include invasive tumour growth in an essential organ, which limits the utility of local therapy, as well as the protection of tumour cells by the blood-brain barrier, their intrinsic resistance to the induction of cell death, and lack of dependence on single, targetable oncogenic pathways, all of which impose challenges for systemic therapy. Furthermore, the unique immune environment of the central nervous system needs to be considered when pursuing immune-based therapeutic approaches for glioblastoma. Nevertheless, a range of different immunotherapies are currently being actively investigated in patients with this disease, spurred on by advances in immuno-oncology for other tumour types. Herein, we examine the current state of immunotherapy for gliomas, notably glioblastoma, the implications for combining the current standard-of-care treatment modalities with immunotherapies, potential biomarkers of response, and future directions for glioblastoma immuno-oncology.
749 citations
Harvard University1, Academy for Urban School Leadership2, Yale Cancer Center3, University College London4, Johns Hopkins University5, Heidelberg University6, Yale University7, Cleveland Clinic8, University of Zurich9, Goethe University Frankfurt10, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center11, University of Wollongong12, University of South Florida13, Bristol-Myers Squibb14, Duke University15
TL;DR: Nivolumab monotherapy did not improve overall survival compared with bevacizumab in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma, and additional research is needed to find out why.
Abstract: Importance Clinical outcomes for glioblastoma remain poor. Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade has shown benefits in many cancer types. To our knowledge, data from a randomized phase 3 clinical trial evaluating a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy for glioblastoma have not been reported. Objective To determine whether single-agent PD-1 blockade with nivolumab improves survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma compared with bevacizumab. Design, Setting, and Participants In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial, 439 patients with glioblastoma at first recurrence following standard radiation and temozolomide therapy were enrolled, and 369 were randomized. Patients were enrolled between September 2014 and May 2015. The median follow-up was 9.5 months at data cutoff of January 20, 2017. The study included 57 multicenter, multinational clinical sites. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results A total of 369 patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 184) or bevacizumab (n = 185). TheMGMTpromoter was methylated in 23.4% (43/184; nivolumab) and 22.7% (42/185; bevacizumab), unmethylated in 32.1% (59/184; nivolumab) and 36.2% (67/185; bevacizumab), and not reported in remaining patients. At median follow-up of 9.5 months, median OS (mOS) was comparable between groups: nivolumab, 9.8 months (95% CI, 8.2-11.8); bevacizumab, 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.0-11.8); HR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.83-1.30);P = .76. The 12-month OS was 42% in both groups. The objective response rate was higher with bevacizumab (23.1%; 95% CI, 16.7%-30.5%) vs nivolumab (7.8%; 95% CI, 4.1%-13.3%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar between groups (nivolumab, 33/182 [18.1%]; bevacizumab, 25/165 [15.2%]), with no unexpected neurological TRAEs or deaths due to TRAEs. Conclusions and Relevance Although the primary end point was not met in this randomized clinical trial, mOS was comparable between nivolumab and bevacizumab in the overall patient population with recurrent glioblastoma. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with glioblastoma was consistent with that in other tumor types. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02017717
645 citations
Heidelberg University1, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer2, Erasmus University Rotterdam3, University of California, San Francisco4, Harvard University5, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology6, Cleveland Clinic7, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group8, University of Zurich9, Mayo Clinic10, National Institutes of Health11, University of California, Los Angeles12, University of Toronto13, Ohio State University14, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center15
TL;DR: The current document outlines consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol (BTIP), along with the scientific and practical justifications for these recommendations, resulting from a series of discussions between various experts involved in aspects of neuro-oncology neuroimaging for clinical trials.
Abstract: A recent joint meeting was held on January 30, 2014, with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), clinical scientists, imaging experts, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocate groups to discuss imaging endpoints for clinical trials in glioblastoma. This workshop developed a set of priorities and action items including the creation of a standardized MRI protocol for multicenter studies. The current document outlines consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol (BTIP), along with the scientific and practical justifications for these recommendations, resulting from a series of discussions between various experts involved in aspects of neuro-oncology neuroimaging for clinical trials. The minimum recommended sequences include: (i) parameter-matched precontrast and postcontrast inversion recovery-prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient-recalled echo; (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo acquired after contrast injection and before postcontrast 3D T1-weighted images to control timing of images after contrast administration; (iii) precontrast, axial 2D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery; and (iv) precontrast, axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images. Recommended ranges of sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5 T and 3 T MR systems.
453 citations
Cites background from "Standards of care for treatment of ..."
...Furthermore, very few therapeutic options exist for recurrent disease since patients with prior temozolomide exposure have progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 6 months of 20%–40% regardless of chemotherapeutic intervention (eg, nitrosoureas, temozolomide rechallenge, or bevacizumab).(5,6,8) Thus, there is an urgent need for drug development in recurrent glioblastoma....
[...]
TL;DR: The challenge of developing more effective, molecularly guided approaches for the treatment of GBM patients is addressed, and the current state of knowledge regarding molecular classifiers and their benefit for stratifying patients for treatment is summarized.
Abstract: Glioblastoma (GBM) is one of the most lethal human cancers. Genomic analyses are defining the molecular architecture of GBM, uncovering relevant subsets of patients whose disease may require different treatments. Many pharmacological targets have been revealed, promising to transform patient care through targeted therapies. However, for most patients, clinical responses to targeted inhibitors are either not apparent or not durable. In this review, we address the challenge of developing more effective, molecularly guided approaches for the treatment of GBM patients. We summarize the current state of knowledge regarding molecular classifiers and examine their benefit for stratifying patients for treatment. We survey the molecular landscape of the disease, discussing the challenges raised by acquired drug resistance. Furthermore, we analyze the biochemical features of GBM, suggesting a next generation of drug targets, and we examine the contribution of tumor heterogeneity and its implications. We conclude with an analysis of the experimental approaches and their potential benefit to patients.
428 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The addition of temozolomide to radiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma resulted in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant survival benefit with minimal additional toxicity.
Abstract: methods Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed glioblastoma were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone (fractionated focal irradiation in daily fractions of 2 Gy given 5 days per week for 6 weeks, for a total of 60 Gy) or radiotherapy plus continuous daily temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day, 7 days per week from the first to the last day of radiotherapy), followed by six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter for 5 days during each 28-day cycle). The primary end point was overall survival. results A total of 573 patients from 85 centers underwent randomization. The median age was 56 years, and 84 percent of patients had undergone debulking surgery. At a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 12.1 months with radiotherapy alone. The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the radiotherapy-plus-temozolomide group was 0.63 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.75; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The two-year survival rate was 26.5 percent with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 10.4 percent with radiotherapy alone. Concomitant treatment with radiotherapy plus temozolomide resulted in grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxic effects in 7 percent of patients.
16,653 citations
TL;DR: The Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, is the largest population-based registry focused exclusively on primary brain and other central nervous system (CNS) tumors in the US.
Abstract: The Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Cancer Institute (NCI), is the largest population-based registry focused exclusively on primary brain and other central nervous system (CNS) tumors in the United States (US) and represents the entire US population. This report contains the most up-to-date population-based data on primary brain tumors (malignant and non-malignant) and supersedes all previous CBTRUS reports in terms of completeness and accuracy. All rates (incidence and mortality) are age-adjusted using the 2000 US standard population and presented per 100,000 population. The average annual age-adjusted incidence rate (AAAIR) of all malignant and non-malignant brain and other CNS tumors was 23.79 (Malignant AAAIR=7.08, non-Malignant AAAIR=16.71). This rate was higher in females compared to males (26.31 versus 21.09), Blacks compared to Whites (23.88 versus 23.83), and non-Hispanics compared to Hispanics (24.23 versus 21.48). The most commonly occurring malignant brain and other CNS tumor was glioblastoma (14.5% of all tumors), and the most common non-malignant tumor was meningioma (38.3% of all tumors). Glioblastoma was more common in males, and meningioma was more common in females. In children and adolescents (age 0-19 years), the incidence rate of all primary brain and other CNS tumors was 6.14. An estimated 83,830 new cases of malignant and non-malignant brain and other CNS tumors are expected to be diagnosed in the US in 2020 (24,970 malignant and 58,860 non-malignant). There were 81,246 deaths attributed to malignant brain and other CNS tumors between 2013 and 2017. This represents an average annual mortality rate of 4.42. The 5-year relative survival rate following diagnosis of a malignant brain and other CNS tumor was 23.5% and for a non-malignant brain and other CNS tumor was 82.4%.
9,802 citations
TL;DR: Patients with glioblastoma containing a methylated MGMT promoter benefited from temozolomide, whereas those who did not have a methylation of theMGMT promoter did notHave such a benefit and were assigned to only radiotherapy.
Abstract: background Epigenetic silencing of the MGMT (O 6 -methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase) DNArepair gene by promoter methylation compromises DNA repair and has been associated with longer survival in patients with glioblastoma who receive alkylating agents. methods We tested the relationship between MGMT silencing in the tumor and the survival of patients who were enrolled in a randomized trial comparing radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy combined with concomitant and adjuvant treatment with temozolomide. The methylation status of the MGMT promoter was determined by methylation-specific polymerase-chain-reaction analysis. results The MGMT promoter was methylated in 45 percent of 206 assessable cases. Irrespective of treatment, MGMT promoter methylation was an independent favorable prognostic factor (P<0.001 by the log-rank test; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.61). Among patients whose tumor contained a methylated MGMT promoter, a survival benefit was observed in patients treated with temozolomide and radiotherapy; their median survival was 21.7 months (95 percent confidence interval, 17.4 to 30.4), as compared with 15.3 months (95 percent confidence interval, 13.0 to 20.9) among those who were assigned to only radiotherapy (P=0.007 by the log-rank test). In the absence of methylation of the MGMT promoter, there was a smaller and statistically insignificant difference in survival between the treatment groups. conclusions Patients with glioblastoma containing a methylated MGMT promoter benefited from temozolomide, whereas those who did not have a methylated MGMT promoter did not have such a benefit.
6,018 citations
3,381 citations
"Standards of care for treatment of ..." refers background in this paper
...established in 2005, following the pivotal European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC-CTG) trial, where concurrent temozolomide (75 mg/m(2)/daily for up to 7 weeks) and radiotherapy followed by 6 maintenance cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy (150-200 mg/m(2) 5-day therapy every 28 days) led to improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).(4) Improved survival in this trial was largely restricted to a subset of patients harboring promoter methylation of the DNA repair gene O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT)....
[...]
TL;DR: The recognition that contrast enhancement is nonspecific and may not always be a true surrogate of tumor response and the need to account for the nonenhancing component of the tumor mandate that new criteria be developed and validated to permit accurate assessment of the efficacy of novel therapies.
Abstract: Currently, the most widely used criteria for assessing response to therapy in high-grade gliomas are based on two-dimensional tumor measurements on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in conjunction with clinical assessment and corticosteroid dose (the Macdonald Criteria). It is increasingly apparent that there are significant limitations to these criteria, which only address the contrast-enhancing component of the tumor. For example, chemoradiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastomas results in transient increase in tumor enhancement (pseudoprogression) in 20% to 30% of patients, which is difficult to differentiate from true tumor progression. Antiangiogenic agents produce high radiographic response rates, as defined by a rapid decrease in contrast enhancement on CT/MRI that occurs within days of initiation of treatment and that is partly a result of reduced vascular permeability to contrast agents rather than a true antitumor effect. In addition, a subset of patients treated with antiangiogenic agents develop tumor recurrence characterized by an increase in the nonenhancing component depicted on T2-weighted/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences. The recognition that contrast enhancement is nonspecific and may not always be a true surrogate of tumor response and the need to account for the nonenhancing component of the tumor mandate that new criteria be developed and validated to permit accurate assessment of the efficacy of novel therapies. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group is an international effort to develop new standardized response criteria for clinical trials in brain tumors. In this proposal, we present the recommendations for updated response criteria for high-grade gliomas.
3,077 citations