Department of Clinical and Experimental Oncology, Medical Oncology 1, Veneto Institute of Oncology, IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy.
Department of Clinical and Experimental Oncology, Medical Oncology 1, Veneto Institute of Oncology, IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017 Mar;111:94-102. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.01.018. Epub 2017 Jan 30.
BACKGROUND: glioblastomas are highly vascularized tumors and various antiangiogenic drugs have been investigated in clinical trials showing unclear results. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to clarify and evaluate their effectiveness in glioblastoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: we searched relevant published and unpublished randomized clinical trials analyzing antiangiogenic drugs versus chemotherapy in glioblastoma patients from January 2006 to January 2016 in MEDLINE, WEB of SCIENCE, ASCO, ESMO and SNO databases. RESULTS: fourteen randomized clinical trials were identified (7 with bevacizumab, 2 cilengitide, 1 enzastaurin, 1 dasatinib, 1 vandetanib, 1 temsirolimus, 1 cediranib) including 4330 patients. Antiangiogenic drugs showed no improvement in overall survival with a pooled HR of 1.00, a trend for an inferior outcome, in terms of overall survival, was observed in the group of patients receiving antiangiogenic drug alone compared to cytotoxic drug alone (HR=1.24, p=0.056). Bevacizumab did not improve overall survival. Twelve trials (4113 patients) were analyzed for progression-free survival. Among antiangiogenic drugs, only bevacizumab demonstrated an improvement of progression-free survival (HR=0.63, p<0.001), both alone (HR=0.60, p=0.003) or in combination to chemotherapy (HR=0.63; p<0.001), both as first-line treatment (HR=0.70, p<0.001) or in recurrent disease (HR=0.52, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: antiangiogenic drugs did not improve overall survival in glioblastoma patients, either as first or second-line treatment, and either as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. Among antiangiogenic drugs, only bevacizumab improved progression-free survival regardless of treatment line, both as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy.
背景:胶质母细胞瘤是高度血管化的肿瘤,已有多种抗血管生成药物在临床试验中进行了研究,但结果并不明确。我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以阐明并评估这些药物在胶质母细胞瘤患者中的疗效。
患者和方法:我们检索了 2006 年 1 月至 2016 年 1 月期间 MEDLINE、WEB of SCIENCE、ASCO、ESMO 和 SNO 数据库中分析抗血管生成药物与化疗治疗胶质母细胞瘤患者的已发表和未发表的随机临床试验。
结果:共确定了 14 项随机临床试验(7 项使用贝伐珠单抗,2 项使用西仑吉肽,1 项使用恩扎妥林,1 项使用达沙替尼,1 项使用凡德他尼,1 项使用替西罗莫司,1 项使用 Cediranib),共纳入 4330 例患者。抗血管生成药物在总生存方面未显示出改善,总体生存的汇总 HR 为 1.00,与单独使用细胞毒性药物相比,单独使用抗血管生成药物的患者的结局更差(HR=1.24,p=0.056)。贝伐珠单抗不能改善总生存。对 12 项试验(4113 例患者)进行了无进展生存分析。在抗血管生成药物中,只有贝伐珠单抗显示出无进展生存的改善(HR=0.63,p<0.001),无论是单独使用(HR=0.60,p=0.003)还是与化疗联合使用(HR=0.63;p<0.001),无论是一线治疗(HR=0.70,p<0.001)还是复发性疾病(HR=0.52,p<0.001)。
结论:抗血管生成药物无论是一线还是二线治疗,无论是单药还是与化疗联合应用,均不能改善胶质母细胞瘤患者的总生存。在抗血管生成药物中,只有贝伐珠单抗改善了无进展生存,无论治疗线如何,无论是单药还是与化疗联合使用。
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017-1-30
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-6-27
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-5-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009-7-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-1-16
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-7-26
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-6-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Int J Mol Sci. 2024-2-21
Cancers (Basel). 2023-8-26
BMC Cancer. 2023-6-14
Case Rep Oncol. 2022-6-27
Front Oncol. 2022-3-2