Bevacizumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone as neoadjuvant treatment in unresected glioblastoma: the GENOM 009 randomized phase II trial.

We sought to determine the impact of bevacizumab on reduction of tumor size prior to chemoradiotherapy in unresected glioblastoma patients. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive temozolomide (TMZ arm) or temozolomide plus bevacizumab (TMZ + BEV arm). In both arms, neoadjuvant treatment was temozolomide (85 mg/m(2), days 1-21, two 28-day cycles), concurrent radiation plus temozolomide, and six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide. In the TMZ + BEV arm, bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) was added on days 1 and 15 of each neoadjuvant cycle and on days 1, 15 and 30 of concurrent treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed response to neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the impact on outcome of MGMT methylation in tumor and serum. One hundred and two patients were included; 43 in the TMZ arm and 44 in the TMZ + BEV arm were evaluable for response. Results favored the TMZ + BEV arm in terms of objective response (3 [6.7 %] vs. 11 [22.9 %]; odds ratio 4.2; P = 0.04). PFS and OS were longer in the TMZ + BEV arm, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. MGMT methylation in tumor, but not in serum, was associated with outcome. More patients experienced toxicities in the TMZ + BEV than in the TMZ arm (P = 0.06). The combination of bevacizumab plus temozolomide is more active than temozolomide alone and may well confer benefit in terms of tumor shrinkage in unresected patients albeit at the expense of greater toxicity.

Geometrical Measures Obtained from Pretreatment Postcontrast T1 Weighted MRIs Predict Survival Benefits from Bevacizumab in Glioblastoma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic therapies for glioblastoma (GBM) such as bevacizumab (BVZ), have been unable to extend survival in large patient cohorts. However, a subset of patients having angiogenesis-dependent tumors might benefit from these therapies. Currently, there are no biomarkers allowing to discriminate responders from non-responders before the start of the therapy. METHODS: 40 patients from the randomized GENOM009 study complied the inclusion criteria (quality of images, clinical data available). Of those, 23 patients received first line temozolomide (TMZ) for eight weeks and then concomitant radiotherapy and TMZ. 17 patients received BVZ+TMZ for seven weeks and then added radiotherapy to the treatment. Clinical variables were collected, tumors segmented and several geometrical measures computed including: Contrast enhancing (CE), necrotic, and total volumes; equivalent spherical CE width; several geometric measures of the CE 'rim' geometry and a set of image texture measures. The significance of the results was studied using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis. Correlations were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that total, CE and inner volume (p = 0.019, HR = 4.258) and geometric heterogeneity of the CE areas (p = 0.011, HR = 3.931) were significant parameters identifying response to BVZ. The group of patients with either regular CE areas (small geometric heterogeneity, median difference survival 15.88 months, p = 0.011) or those with small necrotic volume (median survival difference 14.50 months, p = 0.047) benefited substantially from BVZ. CONCLUSION: Imaging biomarkers related to the irregularity of contrast enhancing areas and the necrotic volume were able to discriminate GBM patients with a substantial survival benefit from BVZ. A prospective study is needed to validate our results.