A Randomized Phase II Trial (TAMIGA) Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Bevacizumab Through Multiple Lines of Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) through multiple lines in patients with recurrent glioblastoma who had progressed after first-line treatment with radiotherapy, temozolomide, and BEV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TAMIGA (NCT01860638) was a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in adult patients with glioblastoma. Following surgery, patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma received first-line treatment consisting of radiotherapy plus temozolomide and BEV, followed by six cycles of temozolomide and BEV, then BEV monotherapy until disease progression (PD1). Randomization occurred at PD1 (second line), and patients received lomustine (CCNU) plus BEV (CCNU + BEV) or CCNU plus placebo (CCNU + placebo) until further disease progression (PD2). At PD2 (third line), patients continued BEV or placebo with chemotherapy (investigator's choice). The primary endpoint was survival from randomization. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival in the second and third lines (PFS2 and PFS3) and safety. RESULTS: Of the 296 patients enrolled, 123 were randomized at PD1 (CCNU + BEV, n = 61; CCNU + placebo, n = 62). The study was terminated prematurely because of the high drop-out rate during first-line treatment, implying underpowered inferential testing. The proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids at randomization was similar (BEV 33%, placebo 31%). For the CCNU + BEV and CCNU + placebo groups, respectively, median survival from randomization was 6.4 versus 5.5 months (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.59), median PFS2 was 2.3 versus 1.8 months (stratified HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00), median PFS3 was 2.0 versus 2.2 months (stratified HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.37-1.33), and median time from randomization to a deterioration in health-related quality of life was 1.4 versus 1.3 months (stratified HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52-1.12). The incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events was 19% (CCNU + BEV) versus 15% (CCNU + placebo). CONCLUSION: There was no survival benefit and no detriment observed with continuing BEV through multiple lines in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Previous research suggested that there may be value in continuing bevacizumab (BEV) beyond progression through multiple lines of therapy. No survival benefit was observed with the use of BEV through multiple lines in patients with glioblastoma who had progressed after first-line treatment (radiotherapy + temozolomide + BEV). No new safety concerns arose from the use of BEV through multiple lines of therapy.

The future of antiangiogenic treatment in glioblastoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A major recent clinical research focus for glioblastoma has been the therapeutic evaluation of antiangiogenic agents. Several vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and a soluble decoy VEGF receptor have demonstrated nominal benefit among patients. In contrast, bevacizumab, a humanized VEGF monoclonal antibody, exhibits evidence of apparent antitumor benefit, although these data remain controversial. In this review, we summarize how results of clinical trials evaluating bevacizumab to date influence the future of this therapeutic for recurrent and newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently reported, placebo-controlled phase III studies demonstrate a meaningful progression-free survival increment, but no overall survival benefit among newly diagnosed patients treated with bevacizumab. For unclear reasons, quality-of-life surveys from these studies revealed divergent results. Among recurrent patients, uncontrolled trials demonstrate improved overall radiographic response and progression-free survival rates, although the impact of bevacizumab on overall survival remains to be defined by an ongoing randomized phase III trial. SUMMARY: The role of bevacizumab for glioblastoma remains uncertain but will likely be strongly influenced by results of a randomized phase III study among recurrent patients as well as further investigation of gene expression biomarker profiles to identify newly diagnosed patients more likely to derive survival benefit.

[Role of adrenomedullin in glioblastomas growth]. / Invasion et angiogenèse dans les gliomes: rôle de l'adrénomédulline.

Glioblastoma multiforme is the most malignant of the primary brain tumors and is almost always fatal. The treatment strategies for this disease have not changed appreciably for many years and most are based on a limited understanding of the biology of the disease. Growth factors are potential targets for therapeutic strategies because they are essential for tumor growth and progression. Adrenomedullin (AM) is a multifunctional regulatory peptide with mitogenic and angiogenic capabilities among others. Real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction analysis showed that AM mRNA was correlated to the tumor type and grade, with high expression in all glioblastomas analysed, whereas a low expression was found in anaplastic astrocytomas and barely detectable levels in low-grade astrocytomas and oligodendriogliomas. The correlation of AM expression to the grade of glioma support the hypothesis that AM may participate in the progression of gliomas. We demonstrate that AM may function as an autocrine/paracrine growth factor for glioblastoma cells. The data demonstrated that the anti-AM antibody significantly suppress the growth of established glioblastoma xenografts. The action of AM is specific and is mediated by the calcitonin receptor-like receptor/receptor activity-modifying protein-2 and -3 (CRLR/RAMP2, CRLR/RAMP3). Furthermore, the proangiogenic action of AM on cultured endothelial cells via CRLR/RAMP2 and CRLR/RAMP3 receptors may translate in vivo into enhanced neovascularization and therefore identify AM and its receptors acting as potential new targets for antiangiogenic therapies.

Evaluation of fractionated radiotherapy and gamma knife radiosurgery in cavernous sinus meningiomas: treatment strategy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the respective role of fractionated radiotherapy (FR) and gamma knife stereotactic (GKS) radiosurgery in cavernous sinus meningioma (CSM) treatment. METHODS: The authors report the long-term follow-up of two populations of patients harboring CSMs treated either by FR (Group I, 38 patients) or GKS radiosurgery (Group II, 36 patients). There were 31 females with a mean age of 53 years in Group I and 29 females with a mean age of 51.2 years in Group II. In 20 patients (Group I) and 13 patients (Group II), FR and GKS radiosurgery were performed as an adjuvant treatment. In 18 patients (Group I) and in 23 patients (Group II), FR and GKS radiosurgery were performed as first line treatment. In our early experience with GKS radiosurgery (1992, date of gamma knife availability in the department), patients with tumors greater than 3 cm, showing close relationship with the optic apparatus (<3 mm) or skull base dural spreading, were treated by FR. Secondarily, with the advent of new devices and our growing experience, these criteria have evolved. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 88.6 months (range, 42-168 mo) for Group I and 63.6 months (range, 48-92 mo) for Group II. According to Sekhar's classification, 26 (68.4%) patients were Grade III to IV in Group I and 10 (27.8%) patients in Group II (P < 0.05); 23 (60.5%) patients had extensive lesions in Group I and 7 (19.4%) patients in Group II (P < 0.05). Mean tumor volume was 13.5 cm in Group I and 5.2 cm in Group II (P < 0.05). Actuarial progression-free survival was 94.7% and 94.4% in Group I and II, respectively. Clinically, improvement was seen for 24 (63.2%) patients in Group I and for 21 (53.8%) patients in Group II (P > 0.05). Radiologically, 11 (29%, Group I) patients and 19 (Group II, 52.7%) patients showed tumor shrinkage (P = 0.04). Transient morbidity was 10.5% in Group I and 2.8% in Group II. Permanent morbidity was 2.6% in Group I and 0% in Group II. CONCLUSION: FR and GKS radiosurgery are safe and efficient techniques in treatment of CSMs, affording comparable satisfactory long-term tumor control. However, GKS radiosurgery provides better radiological response, is far more convenient, and fits into most patients lives much better than FR. Therefore, in the authors' opinion, GKS radiosurgery should be advocated in first intention for patients with CSMs, whereas conventional radiotherapy should be reserved for cases that are not amenable to this technique, thus making these two therapeutic modalities not alternative but complementary tools in CS meningioma treatment strategy.