Presence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Does Not Affect Course and Response to Anticoagulation of Bland Portal Vein Thrombosis in Cirrhotic Patients.

Background: Malignancies are generally considered a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis and may hamper the recanalisation of thrombosed veins. Aim: We investigate whether the natural course and response to anticoagulant treatment of bland portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with cirrhosis complicated by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) differ from those without HCC. Methods: Retrospective study in two hepatology referral centres, in Italy and Romania where patients with a diagnosis of PVT on cirrhosis and follow-up of at least 3 months with repeated imaging were included. Results: A total of 162 patients with PVT and matching inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified: 30 with HCC were compared to 132 without HCC. Etiologies, Child-Pugh Score (7 vs 7) and MELD scores (11 vs 12, p=0.3679) did not differ. Anticoagulation was administered to 43% HCC vs 42% nonHCC. The extension of PVT in the main portal trunk was similar: partial/total involvement was 73.3/6.7% in HCC vs 67.4/6.1% in nonHCC, p=0.760. The remainder had intrahepatic PVT. The recanalization rate was 61.5% and 60.7% in HCC/nonHCC in anticoagulated patients (p=1). Overall PVT recanalisation, including treated and untreated patients, was observed in 30% of HCC vs 37.9% of nonHCC, p=0.530. Major bleeding incidence was almost identical (3.3% vs 3.8%, p=1). Progression of PVT after stopping anticoagulation did not differ (10% vs 15.9%, respectively, HCC/nHCC, p=0.109). Conclusion: The course of bland non-malignant PVT in cirrhosis is not affected by the presence of active HCC. Treatment with anticoagulation in patients with active HCC is safe and as effective as in nonHCC patients, this can potentially allow us to use otherwise contraindicated therapies (ie TACE) if a complete recanalization is achieved with anticoagulation.

Regorafenib Combined with Other Systemic Therapies: Exploring Promising Therapeutic Combinations in HCC.

Regorafenib was the first drug to demonstrate a survival benefit as a second-line agent after sorafenib failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recent studies have shown that its mechanism of action is not only limited to its very broad spectrum of inhibition of angiogenesis, tumor proliferation, spread, and metastasis, but also to its immunomodulatory properties that have favorable effects on the very intricate role that the tumor microenvironment plays in carcinogenesis and tumor growth. In this review, we discuss rationale and evidence supporting regorafenib efficacy in HCC and that led to its approval as a second-line treatment, after sorafenib failure. We also discuss the evidence from clinical practice studies that confirm the results previously achieved in clinical trials. Finally, we analyze the potential role of regorafenib in emerging combined treatment approach with immunotherapy strategies using immune checkpoint blockade and its potential extension to patient categories not included in the registrative study.

Experience with regorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Regorafenib is a diphenylurea oral multikinase inhibitor, structurally comparable to sorafenib, which targets a variety of kinases implicated in angiogenic and tumor growth-promoting pathways. Regorafenib was the first agent to positively show significant survival advantage as a second-line therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had previously failed first-line treatment with sorafenib. Recent evidence has shown that its antitumor efficacy is due to a comprehensive spectrum of tumor neo-angiogenesis and proliferation inhibition and immunomodulatory effects on the tumor microenvironment, which plays a crucial role in tumor development. This review addresses the rationale and supporting evidence for regorafenib's efficacy in HCC that led to regorafenib's approval as a second-line therapy. In addition, we review proof from clinical practice studies that validate the RESORCE trial results. We discuss regorafenib's potential role in the newly emerging therapeutic strategy based on combination with immune checkpoint blockade and its possible extensibility to patient categories not enrolled in the registrative study.

Pattern of macrovascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), macrovascular invasion (MaVI) limits treatment options and decreases survival. Detailed data on the relationship between MaVI extension and patients' characteristics, and its impact on patients' outcome are limited. We evaluated the prevalence and extension of MaVI in a large cohort of consecutive HCC patients, analysing its association with liver disease and tumour characteristics, as well as with treatments performed and patients' survival. METHODS: We analysed data of 4774 patients diagnosed with HCC recorded in the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database (2008-2018). Recursive partition analysis (RPA) was performed to evaluate interactions between MaVI, clinical variables and treatment, exploring the inter-relationship determining overall survival. RESULTS: MaVI prevalence was 11.1%, and median survival of these patients was 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1-7.1). MaVI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, presence of symptoms, worse Performance Status (PS) and liver function, high alphafetoprotein levels and large HCCs. MaVI extension was associated with worse PS, ascites and greater impairment in liver function. RPA identified patients' categories with different treatment indications and survival, ranging from 2.4 months in those with PS > 1 and ascites, regardless of MaVI extension (receiving best supportive care in 90.3% of cases), to 14.1 months in patients with PS 0-1, no ascites and Vp1-Vp2 MaVI (treated with surgery in 19.1% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: MaVI presence and extension, together with PS and ascites, significantly affect patients' survival and treatment selection. The decision tree based on these parameters may help assess patients' prognosis and inform therapeutic decisions.

Comparison of prognostic models in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing Sorafenib: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the gold standard therapy for the advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No scoring/staging is universally accepted to predict the survival of these patients. AIMS: To evaluate the accuracy of the available prognostic models for HCC to predict the survival of advanced HCC patients treated with Sorafenib included in the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA.) multicenter cohort. METHODS: The performance of several prognostic scores was assessed through a Cox regression-model evaluating the C-index and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). RESULTS: Data of 1129 patients were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 61.6 years, and 80.8% were male. During a median follow-up period of 13 months, 789 patients died. The median period of Sorafenib administration was 4 months. All the prognostic scores were able to predict the overall survival (p<0.001) at univariate analysis, except the Albumin-Bilirubin score. The Italian Liver Cancer score (CLIP) yielded the highest accuracy (C-index 0.604, AIC 9898), followed by the ITA.LI.CA. prognostic score (C-index 0.599, AIC 9915). CONCLUSIONS: The CLIP score had the highest accuracy in predicting the overall survival of HCC patients treated with Sorafenib, although its performance remained poor. Further studies are needed to refine the current ability to predict the outcome of HCC patients undergoing Sorafenib.

Correction to: Prognostic Role of Blood Eosinophil Count in Patients with Sorafenib-Treated Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

An Online First version of this article was made available online at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11523-020-00757-3 on 12 October 2020. Errors were subsequently identified in the article, and the following corrections should be noted.

Prognostic Role of Blood Eosinophil Count in Patients with Sorafenib-Treated Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is a long-established hallmark of liver fibrosis and carcinogenesis. Eosinophils are emerging as crucial components of the inflammatory process influencing cancer development. The role of blood eosinophils in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving systemic treatment is an unexplored field. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyse the prognostic role of the baseline eosinophil count in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A training cohort of 92 patients with advanced- or intermediate-stage sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma and two validation cohorts of 65 and 180 patients were analysed. Overall survival and progression-free survival in relation to baseline eosinophil counts were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A negative prognostic impact of low baseline eosinophil counts (< 50*109/L) was demonstrated in all cohorts (training cohort: hazard ratio = 50.1, 95% confidence interval 11.6-216.5, p < 0.0001 for low vs high eosinophil counts; first validation cohort: hazard ratio = 4.55, 95% confidence interval 1.24-16.65, p = 0.022; second validation cohort: hazard ratio = 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.83-5.64, p < 0.0001). Moreover, low eosinophil counts had a negative prognostic role in patients progressing on or intolerant to sorafenib who received second-line regorafenib, but not capecitabine or best supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis identified baseline blood eosinophil counts as a new prognostic factor in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Concerning second-line therapies, eosinophil counts were associated with survival outcomes only in regorafenib-treated patients, suggesting a possible predictive role in this setting.

Post-registration experience of nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: an international study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is Food and Drug Administration approved in sorafenib-experienced, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Post-registration data of treatment in a real-world setting is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed an international, multicenter observational study to confirm safety and efficacy of nivolumab in 233 patients treated outside clinical trials from eight centers in North America, Europe and Asia. RESULTS: Patients received nivolumab for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (n=191, 92.0%) and Child-Pugh (CP) A (n=158, 67.8%) or B (n=75, 32.2%) HCC as first (n=85, 36.5%) or second to fourth systemic therapy line (n=148, 63.5%). Objective response rate (ORR) was 22.4% and disease control rate was 52.1%. Median overall survival (OS) was 12.2 months (95% CI 8.4 to 16.0) and median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% CI 6.1 to 14.2). Treatment-related adverse events of grade >2 occurred in 26 patients (11.2%). Efficacy and safety were similar across CP classes and therapy line. OS was shorter in CP-B than A (7.3 months vs 16.3 months, p<0.001) and in post-first line use (10.4 months vs 16.3 months, p=0.05). Achievement of an objective response predicted for improved OS (25.4 months vs 13.2 months, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms safety and efficacy of nivolumab in advanced HCC across various lines of therapy and degrees of liver dysfunction. Despite equal ORR and toxicity to nivolumab, patients with CP-B functional class have shorter survival than the patients with CP-A.

Long-lasting remission in a metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma patient after combined regorafenib therapy and surgery.

AIMS: The therapeutic scenario of systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rapidly changing. There is much interest in the possibility of combining new therapies with surgery, but clinical data is lacking. We aimed to provide an example of such integration. PATIENTS & METHODS: We report a patient with metastatic HCC who received regorafenib in the setting of the RESORCE trial. RESULTS: A brilliant response led to a tumor downstaging and a subsequent adrenal metastasectomy with radical intent. CONCLUSIONS: New agents will change the therapeutic perspectives in advanced HCC and lead to a higher rate of objective responses, with possibilities of associating systemic therapy and surgery. Thus, the management of HCC will require more and more of an integrated, multidisciplinary and personalized approach.

MiR-30e-3p Influences Tumor Phenotype through MDM2/TP53 Axis and Predicts Sorafenib Resistance in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

The molecular background of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is highly heterogeneous, and biomarkers predicting response to treatments are an unmet clinical need. We investigated miR-30e-3p contribution to HCC phenotype and response to sorafenib, as well as the mutual modulation of TP53/MDM2 pathway, in HCC tissues and preclinical models. MiR-30e-3p was downregulated in human and rat HCCs, and its downregulation associated with TP53 mutations. TP53 contributed to miR-30e-3p biogenesis, and MDM2 was identified among its target genes, establishing an miR-30e-3p/TP53/MDM2 feedforward loop and accounting for miR-30e-3p dual role based on TP53 status. EpCAM, PTEN, and p27 were demonstrated as miR-30e-3p additional targets mediating its contribution to stemness and malignant features. In a preliminary cohort of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib, increased miR-30e-3p circulating levels predicted the development of resistance. In conclusion, molecular background dictates miR-30e-3p dual behavior in HCC. Mdm2 targeting plays a predominant tumor suppressor function in wild-type TP53 contexts, whereas other targets such as PTEN, p27, and EpCAM gain relevance and mediate miR-30e-3p oncogenic role in nonfunctional TP53 backgrounds. Increased circulating levels of miR-30e-3p predict the development of sorafenib resistance in a preliminary series of patients with HCC and deserve future investigations. SIGNIFICANCE: The dual role of miR-30e-3p in HCC clarifies how the molecular context dictates the tumor suppressor or oncogenic function played by miRNAs.

Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Also Improves Survival of Incidentally Detected Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Arisen in Liver Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Due to its poor survival, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is held to be a much more aggressive cancer than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In most published series, patients were diagnosed when symptomatic. However, ICC is now increasingly being discovered during the surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis. Whether this earlier detection of ICC is associated with an equally dismal prognosis or not is unknown. METHODS: This is amulticenter retrospective study of consecutive ICC patients. Patients were stratified into subgroups according to the absence/presence of cirrhosis. A propensity score matching was performed to reduce the potential biases. Cirrhotic patients were further stratified according to their surveillance status. The lead-time bias and its potential effects were also estimated. RESULTS: We gathered 184 patients. Eighty-five patients (46.2%) were cirrhotic. Liver cirrhosis was not related to a worse overall survival (33.0 vs. 32.0 months, p = 0.800) even after the propensity score analysis (43.0 in vs. 44.0 months in 54 pairs of patients, p = 0.878). Among the cirrhotic population, 47 (55.3%) patients had received a diagnosis of ICC during a surveillance programme. The 2 subgroups differed in maximum tumour dimensions (30 vs. 48 mm in surveyed and non-surveyed patients, respectively). Surveyed patients were more likely to receive surgical treatments (59.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.003). Overall survival was higher in surveyed patients (51.0 vs. 21.0 months, p < 0.001). These benefits were confirmed after correcting for the lead-time bias. CONCLUSIONS: Cirrhotic patients have different clinical presentation and outcomes of ICC according to their surveillance status. In our series, ICC in cirrhosis was not associated with worse OS. Cirrhosis itself should not discourage either surgical or non-surgical treatments.

Immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A review of potential new drugs based on ongoing clinical studies as of 2019.

In the latest years, antineoplastic immunotherapy revolutionised the therapeutic landscape in oncology. First shown to be effective in melanoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors are now being tested for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preliminary results have been particularly promising. As a consequence, an increasing number of clinical trials are underway. The role of the immune system in carcinogenesis (with particular reference to tumour escape immune mechanisms), as well as the current immunotherapy trials for HCC in its different clinical scenarios, are the subject of this review. In particular, we aim to provide fresh updates about these novel therapeutic agents which promise to shape the future therapeutic scenario of HCC.

Systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma: challenges and future perspectives.

Sorafenib has been the only approved systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for almost a decade. Recently, two new drugs showed positive results in two Phase III studies. The RESORCE trial identified regorafenib as a valid second-line treatment for patients progressing to sorafenib, the REFLECT trial showed that lenvatinib is noninferior to sorafenib as front-line treatment. Following these trials, the therapeutic scenario will be dominated by anti-VEGFR drugs, with three different molecules showing a proven anticancer activity. Some open problems still remain and different immunotherapy trials are underway, following promising preliminary results. In this review we analyze: the most recent advancements about patients treated with sorafenib; the results of RESORCE and REFLECT trials; and the ongoing Phase III clinical trials. Finally, we discuss how they could address the current problems and possibly reshape the future of the systemic treatments for HCC.

Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.

Oral oxycodone/naloxone for pain control in cirrhosis: Observational study in patients with symptomatic metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pain management in cirrhosis is a clinical challenge. Most analgesics are metabolized in the liver and cirrhosis may deeply alter their concentration, favouring the appearance of side effects. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral prolonged-release association of oxycodone/naloxone tablets (OXN) in the treatment of moderate/severe cancer pain in cirrhotic patients with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We enrolled n = 32 HCC patients with moderate/severe cancer pain unresponsive to paracetamol alone or associated with codeine or tramadol. All patients received an initial OXN dose of 5 mg bid to be gradually increased in case of insufficient analgesia. At baseline and follow-up visits, we evaluated: pain intensity (using the Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), patients' autonomy in daily activities (Barthel Functioning Index); bowel dysfunction (Bowel Function Index, BFI), signs of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and other opioid-induced side effects. RESULTS: No clinically significant adverse effects were reported (median follow-up 122 days). No significant worsening of the BFI score was noted and no cases of HE were detected. Two patients (6.3%) discontinued treatment before T14 because of mild nausea and dizziness. The remaining n = 30 patients were assessed for efficacy. Treatment led to a significant reduction in the mean of pain scores both at T14 (-37.1 ± 16.3%, P < .001) and at T28 (-55.6 ± 21.5%, P < .001); Barthel scores showed gradual and significant increase from T0 (81.6 ± 13.0) to T14 (86.5 ± 11.4, P = .001) and to T28 (88.3 ± 13.6, P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: OXN may be considered a safe and effective option in the fragile population of cirrhotic patients.

Prognostic significance of adverse events in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

Sorafenib is the standard treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with advanced stage disease. Although its effectiveness has been demonstrated by randomized clinical trials and confirmed by field practice studies, reliable markers predicting therapeutic response have not yet been identified. Like other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, treatment with sorafenib is burdened by the development of adverse effects, the most frequent being cutaneous toxicity, diarrhoea, arterial hypertension and fatigue. In recent years, several studies have analysed the correlation between off-target effects and sorafenib efficacy in patients with HCC. In this review, an overview of the studies assessing the prognostic significance of sorafenib-related adverse events is provided.

Metronomic capecitabine as second-line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib failure.

BACKGROUND: No standard second-line treatments are available for hepatocellular carcinoma patients who fail sorafenib therapy. We assessed the safety and efficacy of metronomic capecitabine after first-line sorafenib failure. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving metronomic capecitabine between January 2012 and November 2014. The primary end-point was safety, secondary end-point was efficacy, including time-to-progression and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (80% Child-Pugh A, 80% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) received metronomic capecitabine (500 mg/bid). Median treatment duration was 3.2 months (range 0.6-31). Fourteen (53%) patients experienced at least one adverse event. The most frequent drug-related adverse events were bilirubin elevation (23%), fatigue (15%), anaemia (11%), lymphoedema (11%), and hand-foot syndrome (7.6%). Treatment was interrupted in 19 (73%) for disease progression, in 4 (15%) for liver deterioration, and in 1 (3.8%) for adverse event. Disease control was achieved in 6 (23%) patients. Median time-to-progression was 4 months (95% confidence interval 3.2-4.7). Median overall survival was 8 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-12.3). CONCLUSIONS: Metronomic capecitabine was well tolerated in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who had been treated with sorafenib. Preliminary data show potential anti-tumour activity with long-lasting disease control in a subgroup of patients that warrants further evaluation in a phase III study.

Adherence to AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in clinical practice: experience of the Bologna Liver Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on real-life adherence to international guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. We analysed the rate of adherence to American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines, to identify reasons for discrepancy with treatments performed in our centre. METHODS: 227 consecutive cirrhotics with a first hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis (2005-2010) were retrospectively evaluated and stratified based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system: 126 early, 50 intermediate, 40 advanced, and 11 end stage. RESULTS: Early hepatocellular carcinomas were theoretically eligible for resection (n=27), liver transplantation (n=36), and percutaneous treatment (n=63). In practice, 15/27 (55.5%), 31/36 (86.1%), and 22/63 (34.9%) respectively were treated as recommended. Reasons for discrepancy were age/comorbidity, tumour location, ultrasound visibility, surgical contraindications. Transarterial chemoembolisation was performed in 25/126 early hepatocellular carcinomas (19.8%), resection in 11/63 early hepatocellular carcinomas eligible for percutaneous treatment (17.5%). Transarterial chemoembolisation was excluded in 16/50 intermediate hepatocellular carcinomas (32%). Resection or transarterial chemoembolisation was performed in 6/40 advanced hepatocellular carcinomas (15%). CONCLUSION: Overall, 60% of patients were treated according to American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines. Approximately 28% of hepatocellular carcinomas were "under-treated" and 7% treated more aggressively than recommended. Peculiarities of individual patients can lead the multidisciplinary team to personalise real-life treatments.

Temozolomide concomitant and adjuvant to radiotherapy in elderly patients with glioblastoma: correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized study conducted on newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients demonstrated that concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide added to standard radiotherapy had a survival advantage compared with radiotherapy alone. The overall survival benefit of this aggressive treatment, however, was attenuated in older or poor performance status patients. The aim of the present study was to verify the activity and the toxicity of temozolomide administration concurrent and adjuvant to radiotherapy as first-line treatment for elderly GBM patients, and to explore correlations between clinical outcome and O6 methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status. METHODS: Newly diagnosed GBM patients>or=65 years were considered eligible. Treatment comprised radiotherapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks) plus continuous daily temozolomide (75 mg/m2/day), followed by 12 maintenance temozolomide cycles (150 mg/m2 once a day for 5 consecutive days every 28 days) if MRI showed no enhancement suggesting a tumor; otherwise, chemotherapy was delivered until complete response or unequivocal progression. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients (34 males; median age, 68 years; range, 65-82 years) were enrolled. Sixteen patients (43%) presented MGMT promoter methylated and 21 unmethylated (57%) status. The median progression-free survival and median survival time (MST) were 9.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6-10.5) and 13.7 months (95% CI, 10-17.3 months), respectively. Mental status deterioration grade 3-4 was detected in 25% of patients. Leukoencephalopathy was diagnosed in 10% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The overall and progression-free survival of patients given concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide are greater than in those given radiotherapy alone; however, this regimen incurs a greater deterioration in mental status. Further randomized trials should, therefore, be conducted to investigate the efficacy and against the toxicity of this regimen as first-line therapy in patients with GBM.