Explore the vast range of titles available.

The CeTeG/NOA-09 trial showed significantly longer overall survival with combined lomustine–temozolomide therapy compared with standard temozolomide for patients with glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. The trial also aimed to investigate the effect of lomustine–temozolomide therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and neurocognitive function, which we report here. In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial, newly diagnosed, chemoradiotherapy-naive patients with MGMT-methylated glioblastoma, aged 18–70 years, with a Karnofsky performance score of 70% or higher, were recruited and enrolled at 17 university hospitals in Germany. Patients received standard radiotherapy (60 Gy) and were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by centre by allocating complete blocks of six to a centre, without masking) to either six 6-week courses of oral combined lomustine (100 mg/m2 on day 1) plus temozolomide (100–200 mg/m2 on days 2–6) or standard oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 daily during radiotherapy plus six 4-week courses of temozolomide [150–200 mg/m2] on days 1–5, every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was overall survival. HRQOL, assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire core-30 and the EORTC brain cancer module (BN20); and neurocognitive function, assessed using the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), plus a neurocognitive test battery (NOA-07), including Trail Making Test A and B (TMT-A and B), working memory tests, and tests for lexical (Controlled Oral Word Association [COWA]) and semantic verbal fluency, were secondary endpoints analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT; all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study chemotherapy). We used linear mixed-model analyses to investigate differences between treatment groups regarding HRQOL (clinically relevant ≥10 points) and MMSE scores (clinically relevant ≥3 points). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01149109. Between June 17, 2011 and April 8, 2014, 141 patients were randomly assigned and 129 patients began treatment and were included in the mITT population (63 in the temozolomide and 66 in the lomustine–temozolomide group). Median follow-up for HRQOL (the item global health) was 19·4 months (IQR 7·8–38·6), for MMSE was 15·3 months (4·1–29·6), and for COWA was 11·0 months (0–27·5). We found no significant impairment regarding any item of HRQOL in the lomustine–temozolomide group (difference between the groups for global health 0·30 [95% CI −0·23 to 0·83]; p=0·26). Differences in MMSE were in favour of the temozolomide group (difference −0·11 [95% CI −0·19 to −0·03]; p=0·0058) but were not clinically relevant (1·76/30 points over 4 years). We found no significant difference between the groups in any subtest of the neurocognitive test battery (difference for COWA 0·04 [95% CI −0·01 to 0·09]; p=0·14). The absence of systematic and clinically relevant changes in HRQOL and neurocognitive function combined with the survival benefit of lomustine–temozolomide versus temozolomide alone suggests that a long-term net clinical benefit exists for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylation of the MGMT promoter and supports the use of lomustine–temozolomide as a treatment option for these patients. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Background We evaluated patterns of tumor growth in patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma who were assigned to undergo radiotherapy in conjunction with bevacizumab/irinotecan (BEV/IRI) or standard temozolomide (TMZ) within the randomized phase II GLARIUS trial. Methods In 142 patients (94 BEV/IRI, 48 TMZ), we reviewed magnetic resonance imaging scans at baseline and first tumor recurrence. Based on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images, we assessed tumor growth patterns and tumor invasiveness. Tumor growth patterns were classified as either multifocal or local at baseline and recurrence; at first recurrence, we additionally assessed whether distant lesions appeared. Invasiveness was determined as either diffuse or non-diffuse. Associations with treatment arms were calculated using Fisher’s exact test. Results At baseline, 115 of 142 evaluable patients (81%) had a locally confined tumor. Between treatment arms, there was no significant difference in the fraction of tumors that changed from an initially local tumor growth pattern to a multifocal pattern (12 and 13%, p  = 0.55). Distant lesions appeared in 17% (BEV/IRI) and 13% (TMZ) of patients ( p  = 0.69). 15% of patients in the BEV/IRI arm and 8% in the TMZ arm developed a diffuse growth pattern from an initially non-diffuse pattern ( p  = 0.42). Conclusions The tumor growth and invasiveness patterns do not differ between BEV/IRI and TMZ-treated MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma patients in the GLARIUS trial. BEV/IRI was not associated with an increased rate of multifocal, distant, or highly invasive tumors at the time of recurrence.

Purpose The adequate second-line therapy of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) is a matter of ongoing debate. This particularly applies to patients with a non-methylated MGMT promotor who are known to have a poor response to alkylating chemotherapy. In some countries, antiangiogenic therapy with BEV is applied as second-line therapy, and in others nitrosourea therapy is second-line choice. It is an open question whether the delay of BEV to third-line therapy has a negative impact on survival. Methods A total of 61 adult patients (median age 56.9 years) with MGMT-non-methylated relapsed GBM treated with BEV ( n  = 45) or nitrosourea ( n  = 16) as second-line therapy were analyzed retrospectively and compared regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Patients treated with second-line BEV had longer median PFS (107 days, 95 % CI 80.7–133.2 days) than patients with second-line nitrosourea (52 days, 95 % CI 36.3–67.7 days, P  = 0.011, logrank test). However, there was no significant difference in overall survival (BEV median 170 days, 95 % CI 87.2–252.8 days; nitrosourea median 256 days, 95 % CI 159.9–352.0 days, P  = 0.468). PFS was similar after BEV third-line therapy (median 117 days, 95 % CI 23.6–210.4 days) as compared to second-line BEV therapy (median 107 days, 95 % CI 80.7–133.3 days, P  = 0.584). Conclusion Our findings suggest that early treatment with BEV in patients with MGMT-non-methylated relapsed GBM is associated with a better PFS, but not with superior OS, possibly implicating that the early, i.e., second-line, use of BEV is not mandatory and BEV treatment may safely be delayed to third-line therapy in this subgroup of patients.

Purpose Dovitinib (TKI258) is an oral multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR, VEGFR, PDGFR β, and c-Kit. Since dovitinib is able to cross the blood–brain barrier and targets brain tumor-relevant pathways, we conducted a phase I trial to demonstrate its safety in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Patients and methods Patients with first or second GBM recurrence started treatment with the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) previously established in systemic cancer patients (500 mg/d, 5 days on/2 days off). A modified 3 + 3 design in three cohorts (500, 400, 300 mg) was used. Results Twelve patients were enrolled. Seventy-two adverse events (AEs) occurred and 16.7 % of AEs were classified as ≥CTC grade 3 toxicity, mainly including hepatotoxicity and hematotoxicity. Only one out of six patients of the 300-mg cohort showed grade 3 toxicity. The PFS-6 rate was 16.7 %, and it was not associated with detection of the FGFR-TACC gene fusion in the tumor. Conclusion Dovitinib is safe in patients with recurrent GBM and showed efficacy in only some patients unselected for target expression. The recommended phase II dose of 300 mg would be substantially lower than the recently established MTD in systemic cancer patients. Further personalized trials are recommended.

The value of bevacizumab (BEV) in recurrent glioblastoma is unclear. Imaging parameters and progression-free survival (PFS) are problematic endpoints. Few data exist on clinical factors influencing overall survival (OS) in unselected patients with recurrent glioblastoma exposed to BEV. We retrospectively analyzed 174 patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with BEV at two German brain tumor centers. We evaluated general patient characteristics, MGMT status, pretreatment, concomitant oncologic treatment and overall survival. Karnofsky performance score, number of prior chemotherapies, number of prior recurrences and combined treatment with irinotecan (IRI) were significantly associated with OS in univariate analysis. We did not find differences in OS related to sex, age, histology, MGMT status, prior surgical treatment or number of prior radiotherapies. Combined treatment with IRI and higher KPS both remained significantly associated with prolonged survival in multivariate analysis, but patients receiving IRI co-treatment had less advanced disease. Grouping into clinically relevant categories revealed an OS of 16.9 months from start of BEV in patients with first recurrence and KPS ≥ 80 % (n = 25). In contrast, in patients with second recurrence and KPS < 80 %, OS was 3.6 months (n = 27). Our observational data support an early use of BEV in patients with good performance status. The benefit of co-treatment with IRI in our cohort seems to be the result of biased patient recruitment.

Purpose The phase II GLARIUS trial assigned patients with newly diagnosed, O -6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated glioblastoma to experimental bevacizumab/irinotecan (BEV/IRI) or standard temozolomide (TMZ). To identify subpopulations with a particularly favorable course, we assessed the prognostic potential of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers before treatment onset. Methods MRIs at baseline (before treatment onset) were analyzed for T1-hyperintense and diffusion-restricted lesions; as well as the presence of both hyperintense and diffusion-restricted (double positive) lesions. The MRI findings were correlated with overall and progression-free survival. Results MRI scans were evaluable in 71% of the GLARIUS modified intention-to-treat population (n = 121 of 170; 88 patients in the BEV/IRI arm, and 33 patients in the TMZ control arm). Diffusion-restricted and T1 hyperintense lesions were present in 60% and 65% of patients in BEV/IRI arm, while 57% and 63% were found in the TMZ arm, respectively. Double positive lesions were found in 37% of BEV/IRI patients and in 39% of TMZ patients. Neither the presence of T1-hyperintense, diffusion-restricted lesions, nor double positive lesions were associated with improved survival. Conclusions Baseline T1-hyperintense and diffusion-restricted lesions are not suitable to predict progression-free or overall survival of patients treated with bevacizumab/irinotecan or temozolomide.

Background: After the failure of radiotherapy and temozolomide, there is no established standard therapy for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Based on the promising data of a previous trial (NOA-01) for primary GBM and some retrospective case series for GBM recurrence, the combination of nimustine and teniposide (VM26) was commonly used in this setting. When nimustine was no longer available in Europe, we switched to intrvaveneous carmustine (BCNU). Data on the toxicity and efficacy of BCNU and VM26 in recurrent GBM are lacking. Methods: In our neurooncological center, all patients with recurrent GBM or with progressed glioma and a typical MRI lesion suggesting GBM treated with BCNU (130-150 mg/m 2 , day 1/42) and VM26 (45-60 mg/m 2 , days 1-3/42) were analyzed retrospectively for progression-free survival, overall survival and toxicity. Results: Fifteen patients (median age 52 years) were identified. Median progression-free survival was 2 months and median overall survival was 4 months. Two patients (14%) developed grade 3/4 hematotoxicity. Nonhematological toxicity ≥grade 3 was not observed. Conclusion: Our data do not support the application of BCNU/VM26 in patients with late stages of recurrent GBM.

Objectives: In this study, we analyzed the prognostic value of different MRI progression patterns for survival in patients with recurrent malignant glioma treated with the vascular endothelial growth factor antibody bevacizumab. Patients and Methods: Twenty-six adult patients with recurrent malignant glioma treated with bevacizumab or bevacizumab/irinotecan were retrospectively analyzed for the development of contrast-enhanced (T1-weighted MRI) and T2/FLAIR lesions. According to the progression pattern, patients were divided into 3 subgroups: (1) patients with primarily progressive contrast-enhanced lesions in the first MRI after initiation of therapy (‘primary PD group'); (2) patients with stable or regressive enhanced lesions but progressive FLAIR lesions (‘FLAIR-only PD group'), and (3) patients with stable or regressive contrast-enhanced T1 and FLAIR lesions (‘no PD group'). Results: Overall survival (OS) in the 6 patients in the FLAIR-only PD group was not significantly different from the 11 patients in the no PD group (median 311 vs. 254 days, respectively). In contrast, survival in the FLAIR-only PD group was significantly better (p = 0.025) than in the primary PD group. Conclusion: FLAIR-only progression is not an independent prognostic factor negatively influencing OS in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab and should not lead to discontinuation of bevacizumab therapy.

Large demyelinating inflammatory central nervous system (CNS) lesions may present with contrast enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging and may mimic CNS tumors such as glioma. In ambiguous cases, new diagnostic tools that may be helpful for distinguishing between demyelinating inflammatory and neoplastic CNS lesions are required. The current study presents the case of a patient with a large contrast-enhanced frontal brain lesion, who was initially diagnosed with tumefactive multiple sclerosis. Following the progression of the brain lesion, an 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine positron emission tomography (18F-FET PET) was performed, revealing markedly elevated static 18F-FET uptake parameters along with time activity-curves consistent with glioma. Subsequently, a biopsy was undertaken, which confirmed the presence of anaplastic oligoastrocytoma. This case illustrates that 18F-FET PET may provide useful diagnostic information in cases where distinction between neoplastic and demyelinating inflammatory CNS lesions is challenging. However, further systematic and prospective analyses are warranted to explore the value of this method in this setting.