Continuous daily sunitinib for recurrent glioblastoma.

Bevacizumab ((BEV) has become a mainstay of treating recurrent glioblastoma, but eventual tumor resistance is expected. Targeting multiple growth-associated signaling pathways may result in more effective treatment than targeting VEGF alone. Patients with recurrent glioblastoma were stratified by prior BEV exposure and treated with sunitinib 37.5 mg daily in this phase II study. Response evaluations were performed at baseline and at the end of every 4 week cycle. Six-month progression-free survival (PFS6) was the primary endpoint for both arms of the study. Secondary endpoints included health related quality of life measures and FDG-PET correlatives with patient outcomes. Sixty-three patients were accrued to this study; thirty-two were BEV-naïve, 31 were BEV-resistant. PFS6 was 10.4 % [95 % CI 3.2-33.8] in the BEV-naïve cohort and 0 % in the BEV-resistant cohort. Median overall survival was 9.4 months [95 % CI 6.15-21.90] in the BEV-naïve cohort and 4.37 months [95 % CI 3.02-6.21] in the BEV-resistant cohort. 3/29 patients (10 %) of the BEV-naïve, and 0/27 BEV-resistant patients achieved radiographic response. Thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia were the most common drug-associated adverse events and occurred with higher frequency than expected. Sunitinib treatment in BEV-naïve patients did not appear to affect outcomes with subsequent BEV therapy. Continuous daily sunitinib did not prolong progression-free survival in BEV-naïve nor BEV-resistant patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Scale to predict survival after surgery for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.

PURPOSE: Despite initial treatment with surgical resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) virtually always recurs. Surgery is sometimes recommended to treat recurrence. In this study, we sought to devise a preoperative scale that predicts survival after surgery for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The preoperative clinical and radiographic data of 34 patients who underwent re-operation of recurrent GBM tumors were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. The factors associated with decreased postoperative survival (P < .05) were used to devise a prognostic scale which was validated with a separate cohort of 109 patients. RESULTS: The factors associated with poor postoperative survival were: tumor involvement of prespecified eloquent/critical brain regions (P = .021), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) < or = 80 (P = .030), and tumor volume > or = 50 cm(3) (P = .048). An additive scale (range, 0 to 3 points) comprised of these three variables distinguishes patients with good (0 points), intermediate (1 to 2 points), and poor (3 points) postoperative survival (median survival, 10.8, 4.5, and 1.0 months, respectively; P < .001). The scale identified three statistically distinct groups within the validation cohort as well (median survival, 9.2, 6.3, and 1.9 months, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: We devised and validated a preoperative scale that identifies patients likely to have poor, intermediate, and good relative outcomes after surgical resection of a recurrent GBM tumor. Application of this simple scale may be useful in counseling patients regarding their treatment options and in designing clinical trials.