Hovey Elizabeth J, Field Kathryn M, Rosenthal Mark A, Barnes Elizabeth H, Cher Lawrence, Nowak Anna K, Wheeler Helen, Sawkins Kate, Livingstone Ann, Phal Pramit, Goh Christine, Simes John
Prince of Wales Hospital, Barker Street, Randwick, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia (E.J.H.); University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia (E.J.H.); Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville 3050, Melbourne Victoria, Australia (K.M.F., M.A.R., P.P., C.G.); Department of Medicine (Royal Melbourne Hospital), University of Melbourne, Grattan Street Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia (K.M.F., M.A.R.); National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia (E.H.B., K.S., A.L., J.S.); Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Victoria 3084, Australia (L.C.); Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Perth 6009, Western Australia (A.K.N.); Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia (H.W.).
Neurooncol Pract. 2017 Sep;4(3):171-181. doi: 10.1093/nop/npw025. Epub 2017 May 25.
In patients with recurrent glioblastoma, the benefit of bevacizumab beyond progression remains uncertain. We prospectively evaluated continuing or ceasing bevacizumab in patients who progressed while on bevacizumab.
CABARET, a phase II study, initially randomized patients to bevacizumab with or without carboplatin (Part 1). At progression, eligible patients underwent a second randomization to continue or cease bevacizumab (Part 2). They could also receive additional chemotherapy regimens (carboplatin, temozolomide, or etoposide) or supportive care.
Of 120 patients treated in Part 1, 48 (80% of the anticipated 60-patient sample size) continued to Part 2. Despite randomization, there were some imbalances in patient characteristics. The best response was stable disease in 7 (30%) patients who continued bevacizumab and 2 (8%) patients who stopped receiving bevacizumab. There were no radiological responses. Median progression-free survival was 1.8 vs 2.0 months (bevacizumab vs no bevacizumab; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, .59-1.96; = .81). Median overall survival was 3.4 vs 3.0 months (HR, .84; 95% CI, .47-1.50; = .56 and HR .70; 95% CI .38-1.29; = .25 after adjustment for baseline factors). Quality-of-life scores did not significantly differ between arms. While the maximum daily steroid dose was lower in the continuation arm, the difference was not statistically significant.
Patients who continued bevacizumab beyond disease progression did not have clear survival improvements, although the study was not powered to detect other than very large differences. While these data provide the only randomized evidence related to continuing bevacizumab beyond progression in recurrent glioblastoma, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions and suggests this remains an open question.
在复发性胶质母细胞瘤患者中,贝伐单抗在疾病进展后继续使用的益处仍不明确。我们对在接受贝伐单抗治疗期间病情进展的患者继续或停止使用贝伐单抗进行了前瞻性评估。
CABARET是一项II期研究,最初将患者随机分为接受或不接受卡铂的贝伐单抗治疗组(第1部分)。在疾病进展时,符合条件的患者进行第二次随机分组,以继续或停止使用贝伐单抗(第2部分)。他们也可以接受额外的化疗方案(卡铂、替莫唑胺或依托泊苷)或支持性治疗。
在第1部分治疗的120例患者中,48例(占预期样本量60例的80%)进入第2部分。尽管进行了随机分组,但患者特征仍存在一些不平衡。继续使用贝伐单抗的7例(30%)患者和停止使用贝伐单抗的2例(8%)患者的最佳反应均为疾病稳定。未观察到影像学反应。无进展生存期的中位数分别为1.8个月和2.0个月(贝伐单抗组与非贝伐单抗组;风险比[HR],1.08;95%CI,0.59 - 1.96;P = 0.81)。总生存期的中位数分别为3.4个月和3.0个月(HR,0.84;95%CI,0.47 - 1.50;P = 0.56,在对基线因素进行调整后HR为0.70;95%CI 0.38 - 1.29;P = 0.25)。各治疗组的生活质量评分无显著差异。虽然继续治疗组的每日最大类固醇剂量较低,但差异无统计学意义。
疾病进展后继续使用贝伐单抗的患者生存期并未得到明显改善,尽管该研究的效能不足以检测到非常大的差异。虽然这些数据提供了复发性胶质母细胞瘤患者疾病进展后继续使用贝伐单抗的唯一随机证据,但样本量较小,无法得出明确结论,表明这仍是一个悬而未决的问题。