Association of partial T2-FLAIR mismatch sign and isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation in WHO grade 4 gliomas: results from the ReSPOND consortium.

PURPOSE: While the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign is highly specific for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant, 1p/19q-noncodeleted astrocytomas among lower-grade gliomas, its utility in WHO grade 4 gliomas is not well-studied. We derived the partial T2-FLAIR mismatch sign as an imaging biomarker for IDH mutation in WHO grade 4 gliomas. METHODS: Preoperative MRI scans of adult WHO grade 4 glioma patients (n = 2165) from the multi-institutional ReSPOND (Radiomics Signatures for PrecisiON Diagnostics) consortium were analyzed. Diagnostic performance of the partial T2-FLAIR mismatch sign was evaluated. Subset analyses were performed to assess associations of imaging markers with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one (5.6%) of 2165 grade 4 gliomas were IDH-mutant. Partial T2-FLAIR mismatch was present in 40 (1.8%) cases, 32 of which were IDH-mutant, yielding 26.4% sensitivity, 99.6% specificity, 80.0% positive predictive value, and 95.8% negative predictive value. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated IDH mutation was significantly associated with partial T2-FLAIR mismatch (odds ratio [OR] 5.715, 95% CI [1.896, 17.221], p = 0.002), younger age (OR 0.911 [0.895, 0.927], p < 0.001), tumor centered in frontal lobe (OR 3.842, [2.361, 6.251], p < 0.001), absence of multicentricity (OR 0.173, [0.049, 0.612], p = 0.007), and presence of cystic (OR 6.596, [3.023, 14.391], p < 0.001) or non-enhancing solid components (OR 6.069, [3.371, 10.928], p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated cystic components (p = 0.024) and non-enhancing solid components (p = 0.003) were associated with longer OS, while older age (p < 0.001), frontal lobe center (p = 0.008), multifocality (p < 0.001), and multicentricity (p < 0.001) were associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSION: Partial T2-FLAIR mismatch sign is highly specific for IDH mutation in WHO grade 4 gliomas.

Prospective pilot study to explore the melatonin level in brain tumor patients undergoing radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to assess if the radiotherapy dose decreased the melatonin levels as well as the quality of life and sleep in brain tumor patients. METHODS: We performed a follow-up study on melatonin levels in saliva and its urinary metabolite sulfatoxi-melatonine (STM) samples in patients with brain tumors treated with radiotherapy close to the pineal gland's area. We analyzed the cortisol, cortisone, and excrection of STM normalized by urinary creatinine. In some cases, a polysomnography (PSG) was performed. Quality of life questionnaires, distress scale, and sleepiness inventories were also administered. RESULTS: We included twelve patients (experimental arm) and eight healthy controls (control group). No differences were observed between experimental arm and control group at baseline. No differences were detected in the experimental arm before and after delivering the radiotherapy. No clinically significant differences were found according to the radiotherapy dose delivered. CONCLUSION: Melatonin levels and PSG outcomes do not change after receiving radiotherapy. The findings of this study do not show a statistically significant association between the treatment and the quality of life and sleep.

Hypoxia: The Cornerstone of Glioblastoma.

Glioblastoma is the most aggressive form of brain tumor in adults and is characterized by the presence of hypervascularization and necrosis, both caused by a hypoxic microenvironment. In this review, we highlight that hypoxia-induced factor 1 (HIF-1), the main factor activated by hypoxia, is an important driver of tumor progression in GB patients. HIF-1α is a transcription factor regulated by the presence or absence of O2. The expression of HIF-1 has been related to high-grade gliomas and aggressive tumor behavior. HIF-1 promotes tumor progression via the activation of angiogenesis, immunosuppression, and metabolic reprogramming, promoting cell invasion and survival. Moreover, in GB, HIF-1 is not solely modulated by oxygen but also by oncogenic signaling pathways, such as MAPK/ERK, p53, and PI3K/PTEN. Therefore, the inhibition of the hypoxia pathway could represent an important treatment alternative in a disease with very few therapy options. Here, we review the roles of HIF-1 in GB progression and the inhibitors that have been studied thus far, with the aim of shedding light on this devastating disease.

Is a pretreatment radiological staging system feasible for suggesting the optimal extent of resection and predicting prognosis in glioblastoma? An observational study.

To assess the value of resection in glioblastoma based on pre-surgical tumor characteristics and a subsequent staging system. The lack of a staging system for glioblastoma hinders the analysis of treatment outcome. We classified 292 uniformly treated glioblastoma patients as stage I, II, or III based on tumor size, location, and eloquence and then analyzed the impact of the extent of resection. We classified 62% of patients as stage I, 25.3% as stage II, and 12.7% as stage III. Gross total resection (GTR) was performed mainly in stage I rather than stage II or III patients (79.2% vs. 14.6% vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001). Overall survival (OS) was 17.7, 14.6, and 10.8 months for stage I, II, and III patients, respectively (P = 0.005). Longer OS was significantly associated with greater extent of resection, younger age, KPS ≥ 70%, MGMT methylation, lower stage, and tumor ≤ 5 cm. In the subgroups of stage I (P = 0.04) and stage II (P < 0.001)-but not stage III-patients, GTR and partial resection (PR) were associated with longer OS. We constructed several multivariable models including different variables, and greater extent of resection, smaller tumor size, and MGMT methylation consistently emerged as independent markers of longer OS. This staging system provides a feasible tool for comparison of results. We confirmed the value of partial resection in stage I and II patients, in contrast to some reports suggesting that biopsy only is sufficient when gross total resection cannot be safely achieved.

Efficacy and safety of Levetiracetam vs. other antiepileptic drugs in Hispanic patients with glioblastoma.

Epilepsy is a common symptom in patients with glioblastoma (GB). 213 patients with GB from RedLANO follow-up registry were included. All patients underwent surgery, if feasible, followed by chemoradiation based on temozolomide (Stupp platform). Information was recorded regarding demographics, seizure timing, anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), dosage, time to next seizure, total seizures in 6 months, and main side effects of AEDs. The relationship between epilepsy treatment and overall survival (OS) was evaluated. Mean age was 53 years old and 56.8% were male. Seventy-eight patients (37%) were treated with levetiracetam (LEV), 27% were given another AED and 36% did not require any AED. Choice of AED was not associated with age (p = 0.67), performance status (p = 0.24) or anatomic tumor site (p = 0.34). Seizures and AED requirement were greater in those having primary GB (p = 0.04). After starting an AED, the mean time until next crisis was 9.9 days (SD ± 6.3), which was shorter in those receiving LEV (p = 0.03); mean number of seizures during the first 3 and 6 months were 2.9 and 4, respectively. Most patients treated with LEV (n = 46) required less than two medication adjustments compared to those treated with other AEDs (p = 0.02). Likewise, less patients exposed to LEV required a coadjuvant drug (p = 0.04). Additionally, patients receiving LEV had significantly less adverse effects compared to patients treated with another AED. OS was significantly higher in the group treated with LEV compared to other AEDs (25.5 vs. 17.9 months; p = 0.047). Patients treated with LEV had better seizure control and longer OS compared to other AEDs.

European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of adult astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas.

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.

Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study.

BACKGROUND: Outcome of low-grade glioma (WHO grade II) is highly variable, reflecting molecular heterogeneity of the disease. We compared two different, single-modality treatment strategies of standard radiotherapy versus primary temozolomide chemotherapy in patients with low-grade glioma, and assessed progression-free survival outcomes and identified predictive molecular factors. METHODS: For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study (EORTC 22033-26033), undertaken in 78 clinical centres in 19 countries, we included patients aged 18 years or older who had a low-grade (WHO grade II) glioma (astrocytoma, oligoastrocytoma, or oligodendroglioma) with at least one high-risk feature (aged >40 years, progressive disease, tumour size >5 cm, tumour crossing the midline, or neurological symptoms), and without known HIV infection, chronic hepatitis B or C virus infection, or any condition that could interfere with oral drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either conformal radiotherapy (up to 50·4 Gy; 28 doses of 1·8 Gy once daily, 5 days per week for up to 6·5 weeks) or dose-dense oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 once daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days [one cycle], for a maximum of 12 cycles). Random treatment allocation was done online by a minimisation technique with prospective stratification by institution, 1p deletion (absent vs present vs undetermined), contrast enhancement (yes vs no), age (<40 vs ≥40 years), and WHO performance status (0 vs ≥1). Patients, treating physicians, and researchers were aware of the assigned intervention. A planned analysis was done after 216 progression events occurred. Our primary clinical endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat; secondary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, neurocognitive function (will be reported separately), health-related quality of life and neurological function (reported separately), and correlative analyses of progression-free survival by molecular markers (1p/19q co-deletion, MGMT promoter methylation status, and IDH1/IDH2 mutations). This trial is closed to accrual but continuing for follow-up, and is registered at the European Trials Registry, EudraCT 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00182819. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2005, and March 26, 2010, 707 patients were registered for the study. Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 patients to receive either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). At a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR 31-56), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 35-44) in the temozolomide group and 46 months (40-56) in the radiotherapy group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·9-1·5, p=0·22). Median overall survival has not been reached. Exploratory analyses in 318 molecularly-defined patients confirmed the significantly different prognosis for progression-free survival in the three recently defined molecular low-grade glioma subgroups (IDHmt, with or without 1p/19q co-deletion [IDHmt/codel], or IDH wild type [IDHwt]; p=0·013). Patients with IDHmt/non-codel tumours treated with radiotherapy had a longer progression-free survival than those treated with temozolomide (HR 1·86 [95% CI 1·21-2·87], log-rank p=0·0043), whereas there were no significant treatment-dependent differences in progression-free survival for patients with IDHmt/codel and IDHwt tumours. Grade 3-4 haematological adverse events occurred in 32 (14%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in one (<1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy, and grade 3-4 infections occurred in eight (3%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in two (1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in eight (3%) patients in the radiotherapy group (grade 2) and 16 (7%) in the temozolomide group. 119 (25%) of all 477 patients had died at database lock. Four patients died due to treatment-related causes: two in the temozolomide group and two in the radiotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Overall, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival in patients with low-grade glioma when treated with either radiotherapy alone or temozolomide chemotherapy alone. Further data maturation is needed for overall survival analyses and evaluation of the full predictive effects of different molecular subtypes for future individualised treatment choices. FUNDING: Merck Sharpe & Dohme-Merck & Co, Canadian Cancer Society, Swiss Cancer League, UK National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, US National Cancer Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.

Phase II trial of irinotecan and metronomic temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

This phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of metronomic temozolomide (TMZ) in combination with irinotecan in glioblastoma (GB) at first relapse. Patients with GB at first relapse received TMZ 50 mg/m/2day divided into three doses, except for a single 100 mg/m2 dose, administered between 3 and 6 h before every irinotecan infusion. Irinotecan was given intravenously at the previously established dose of 100 mg/m2 on days 8 and 22 of 28-day cycles. Treatment was given for a maximum of nine cycles or until progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Vascular endothelial growth factor and its soluble receptor 1, thrombospondin-1, microparticles, and microparticle-dependent procoagulant activity were measured in blood before treatment. The primary objective was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Twenty-seven evaluable patients were enrolled. Six-month PFS was 20.8%. Median PFS was 11.6 weeks (95% confidence interval: 7.5-15.7). Stable disease was the best response for nine (37.5%) patients, with a median duration of 11.2 weeks (4.2-35.85 weeks). No differences in PFS or response were observed among patients who relapsed during or after completion of adjuvant TMZ. Grade 3/4 adverse events included lymphopenia (15%), fatigue, diarrhea and febrile neutropenia (3.7% each), lymphopenia, neutropenia, and nausea/vomiting (11.1% each). One patient died from pneumonia and one patient died from pulmonary thromboembolism. Pretreatment levels of angiogenesis biomarkers, microparticles, and microparticle-related procoagulant activity were elevated in patients compared with healthy volunteers. This regimen is feasible, but failed to improve the results obtained with other second-line therapies in recurrent GB.

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.

EANO guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of anaplastic gliomas and glioblastoma.

This guideline provides recommendations for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for patients with malignant gliomas. We differentiate evidence-based standards from reasonable options or non-evidence-based measures that should no longer be considered. The recommendations herein should provide a framework and assurance for the choice of diagnostic procedures and therapeutic measures and aim to reduce complications from unnecessary treatment and cost. The guideline contributes to a critical appreciation of concurrent drugs with a focus on the controlled use of anticonvulsants and steroids. It should serve as a guideline for all professionals involved in the diagnostics and care of glioma patients and also as a source of knowledge for insurance companies and other institutions involved in the cost regulation of cancer care in Europe. Implementation of the recommendations summarised here will need interdisciplinary structures of care for patients with brain tumours and structured processes of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

A phase I study of irinotecan in combination with metronomic temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

To determine the maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan administered every 2 weeks, in combination with a fixed and continuous administration of temozolomide, in patients with glioblastoma at first relapse. Patients received oral temozolomide at a fixed and continuous dose of 50 mg/m divided into three daily doses, except for a single 100 mg/m dose, administered before every irinotecan infusion. Irinotecan was given intravenously on days 8 and 22 of 28-day cycles. The starting dose of irinotecan was 100 mg/m, and this was escalated by increments of 15 mg/m in cohorts of 3-6 evaluable patients. Determination of the dose-limiting toxicity was based on toxicities recorded from day 1 of the first cycleto day 8 of the third cycle. Enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs were not allowed. Tumor response was assessed by MRI every 8 weeks. Twelve patients were enrolled in this phase I study. The three patients enrolled at dose level 1 and six of nine patients enrolled at dose level 2 were evaluable for toxicity. The maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan was 100 mg/m. The dose-limiting toxicities were hematologic and gastrointestinal. Nine patients were evaluable for response: one patient achieved a partial response, four patients remained stable, and four patients had disease progression. The combination of metronomic temozolomide and irinotecan every 2 weeks can be safely administered at the recommended doses; a phase II study with this combination was started and has completed accrual.

Neoadjuvant cisplatin plus temozolomide versus standard treatment in patients with unresectable glioblastoma or anaplastic astrocytoma: a differential effect of MGMT methylation.

Patients with unresectable glioblastoma or anaplastic astrocytoma have a dismal prognosis. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to irradiation in these patients has been studied primarily in non-randomized studies. We have compared the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radiotherapy versus concomitant radiotherapy plus temozolomide in a retrospective analysis of two consecutive series of patients in whom surgery consisted of biopsy only. From 2003 to 2005, 23 patients received two cycles of temozolomide plus cisplatin followed by radiotherapy (Cohort 1), and from 2006 to 2010, 23 additional patients received concomitant radiotherapy and temozolomide followed by adjuvant temozolomide (Cohort 2). In Cohort 1, 91.3 % of patients received all planned chemotherapy cycles. Progression-free and overall survival were 3.3 and 8.5 months, respectively. In Cohort 2, progression-free and overall survival were 5.1 and 11.2 months, respectively. No differences between the two groups were observed in rate of completion of radiotherapy, progression-free or overall survival. MGMT methylation was assessed in 91.3 % of patients. In Cohort 1, patients without MGMT methylation showed a trend towards shorter progression-free survival (P = 0.09), while in Cohort 2, patients without MGMT methylation had longer progression-free survival (P = 0.04). In the overall patient population, neoadjuvant temozolomide plus cisplatin had neither a positive nor negative influence on outcome. However, our findings indicate that patients with methylated MGMT may derive greater benefit from neoadjuvant temozolomide than those with unmethylated MGMT.

State of the neoadjuvant therapy for glioblastoma multiforme-Where do we stand?

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults. Despite several investigations in this field, maximal safe resection followed by chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide with or without tumor-treating fields remains the standard of care with poor survival outcomes. Many endeavors have failed to make a dramatic change in the outcomes of GBM patients. This study aimed to review the available strategies for newly diagnosed GBM in the neoadjuvant setting, which have been mainly neglected in contrast to other solid tumors.

The C250T Mutation of TERTp Might Grant a Better Prognosis to Glioblastoma by Exerting Less Biological Effect on Telomeres and Chromosomes Than the C228T Mutation.

The aim of this study was to determine how TERTp mutations impact glioblastoma prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TERTp mutations were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 258 uniformly treated glioblastoma patients. RNA-sequencing and whole exome sequencing results were available in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Overall, there were no differences in outcomes between patients with mutated TERTp-wt or TERTp. However, we found significant differences according to the type of TERTp mutation. Progression-free survival (mPFS) was 9.1 months for those with the C250T mutation and 7 months for those with either the C228T mutation or TERTp-wt (p = 0.016). Overall survival (mOS) was 21.9 and 15 months, respectively (p = 0.026). This differential effect was more pronounced in patients with MGMTp methylation (mPFS: p = 0.008; mOS: p = 0.021). Multivariate analysis identified the C250T mutation as an independent prognostic factor for longer mOS (HR 0.69; p = 0.044). We found no differences according to TERTp mutation status in molecular alterations common in glioblastoma, nor in copy number variants in genes related to alternative lengthening of telomeres. Nevertheless, in the gene enrichment analysis adjusted for MGMTp methylation status, some Reactome gene sets were differentially enriched, suggesting that the C250T mutation may exert a lesser effect on telomeres or chromosomes. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, patients exhibiting the C250T mutation had a more favorable prognosis compared to those with either TERPp-wt or TERTp C228T mutations. Additionally, our findings suggest a reduced involvement of the C250T mutation in the underlying biological mechanisms related to telomeres.

Marizomib for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma includes surgery, radiotherapy (RT), and temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). The proteasome has long been considered a promising therapeutic target because of its role as a central biological hub in tumor cells. Marizomib is a novel pan-proteasome inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier. METHODS: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1709/Canadian Cancer Trials Group CE.8 was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label phase 3 superiority trial. Key eligibility criteria included newly diagnosed glioblastoma, age > 18 years and Karnofsky performance status > 70. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) in patients receiving marizomib in addition to TMZ/RT→TMZ with patients receiving the only standard treatment in the whole population and in the subgroup of patients with MGMT promoter-unmethylated tumors. RESULTS: The trial was opened at 82 institutions in Europe, Canada, and the U.S. A total of 749 patients (99.9% of the planned 750) were randomized. OS was not different between the standard and the marizomib arm (median 17 vs. 16.5 months; HR = 1.04; P = .64). PFS was not statistically different either (median 6.0 vs. 6.3 months; HR = 0.97; P = .67). In patients with MGMT promoter-unmethylated tumors, OS was also not different between standard therapy and marizomib (median 14.5 vs. 15.1 months, HR = 1.13; P = .27). More CTCAE grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in the marizomib arm than in the standard arm. CONCLUSIONS: Adding marizomib to standard temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy resulted in more toxicity, but did not improve OS or PFS in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Recurrent Glioblastoma: Ongoing Clinical Challenges and Future Prospects.

Virtually all glioblastomas treated in the first-line setting will recur in a short period of time, and the search for alternative effective treatments has so far been unsuccessful. Various obstacles remain unresolved, and no effective salvage therapy for recurrent glioblastoma can be envisaged in the short term. One of the main impediments to progress is the low incidence of the disease itself in comparison with other pathologies, which will be made even lower by the recent WHO classification of gliomas, which includes molecular alterations. This new classification helps refine patient prognosis but does not clarify the most appropriate treatment. Other impediments are related to clinical trials: glioblastoma patients are often excluded from trials due to their advanced age and limiting neurological symptoms; there is also the question of how best to measure treatment efficacy, which conditions the design of trials and can affect the acceptance of results by oncologists and medicine agencies. Other obstacles are related to the drugs themselves: most treatments cannot cross the blood-brain-barrier or the brain-to-tumor barrier to reach therapeutic drug levels in the tumor without producing toxicity; the drugs under study may have adverse metabolic interactions with those required for symptom control; identifying the target of the drug can be a complex issue. Additionally, the optimal method of treatment - local vs systemic therapy, the choice of chemotherapy, irradiation, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or a combination thereof - is not yet clear in glioblastoma in comparison with other cancers. Finally, in addition to curing or stabilizing the disease, glioblastoma therapy should aim at maintaining the neurological status of the patients to enable them to return to their previous lifestyle. Here we review currently available treatments, obstacles in the search for new treatments, and novel lines of research that show promise for the future.

Unlocking Bevacizumab's Potential: rCBVmax as a Predictive Biomarker for Enhanced Survival in Glioblastoma IDH-Wildtype Patients.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant vascular architecture and angiogenesis are hallmarks of glioblastoma IDH-wildtype, suggesting that these tumors are suitable for antiangiogenic therapy. Bevacizumab was FDA-approved in 2009 following promising results in two clinical trials. However, its use for recurrent glioblastomas remains a subject of debate, as it does not universally improve patient survival. PURPOSES: In this study, we aimed to analyze the influence of tumor vascularity on the benefit provided by BVZ and propose preoperative rCBVmax at the high angiogenic tumor habitat as a predictive biomarker to select patients who can benefit the most. METHODS: Clinical and MRI data from 106 patients with glioblastoma IDH-wildtype have been analyzed. Thirty-nine of them received BVZ, and the remaining sixty-seven did not receive a second-line treatment. The ONCOhabitats method was used to automatically calculate rCBV. RESULTS: We found a median survival from progression of 305 days longer for patients with moderate vascular tumors who received BVZ than those who did not receive any second-line treatment. This contrasts with patients with high-vascular tumors who only presented a median survival of 173 days longer when receiving BVZ. Furthermore, better responses to BVZ were found for the moderate-vascular group with a higher proportion of patients alive at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after progression. CONCLUSIONS: We propose rCBVmax as a potential biomarker to select patients who can benefit more from BVZ after tumor progression. In addition, we propose a threshold of 7.5 to stratify patients into moderate- and high-vascular groups to select the optimal second-line treatment.

Trabectedin in pre-treated patients with advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a phase II study evaluating co-treatment with dexamethasone.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the efficacy, toxicity and pharmacokinetic profile of trabectedin with or without prophylactic dexamethasone co-treatment in patients with recurrent advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive trabectedin as a 3-h infusion every 3 weeks with dexamethasone or placebo in the first cycle, with the alternate in the second cycle and with the patient's choice subsequently. Due to toxicity, the randomized design was modified to open-label to make dexamethasone mandatory and the initial dose (1,650 µg/m(2)) was reduced to 1,500 µg/m(2) and then to 1,300 µg/m(2). RESULTS: Forty-one patients were enrolled and 35 were evaluable for efficacy. One partial response and 18 disease stabilizations were found. The median PFS and OS were 2.1 and 10.2 months, respectively, with the 3- and 6-month PFS rates indicating activity in pretreated STS. Twenty-three and 27 patients developed transient asymptomatic grade 3/4 AST and ALT elevation, respectively, and 21 patients had grade 3/4 neutropenia. Dose reduction from 1,650 µg/m(2) to 1,300 µg/m(2) decreased the incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (26% vs. 0%), neutropenia (51% vs. 25%) and AST increase (76% vs. 25% of patients). Four patients died due to drug-related toxicities (3 with placebo). The total body clearance of trabectedin was 28% higher and half-life was 21% lower with dexamethasone compared to placebo, with no differences in volume of distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Trabectedin has confirmed activity in patients with pretreated STS. This study shows that co-treatment with dexamethasone improves the safety of trabectedin by reducing drug-induced hepatotoxicity and myelosuppression.