Title |
Toxicity and efficacy of lomustine and bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma patients
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11060-017-2736-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
J. N. Jakobsen, T. Urup, K. Grunnet, A. Toft, M. D. Johansen, S. H. Poulsen, I. J. Christensen, A. Muhic, H. S. Poulsen |
Abstract |
The combination of lomustine and bevacizumab is a commonly used salvage treatment for recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). We investigated the toxicity and efficacy of lomustine plus bevacizumab (lom-bev) in a community-based patient cohort and made a comparison to another frequently used combination therapy consisting of irinotecan plus bevacizumab (iri-bev). Seventy patients with recurrent GBM were treated with lomustine 90 mg/m2 every 6 weeks and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Toxicity was registered and compared to the toxicity observed in 219 recurrent GBM patients who had previously been treated with irinotecan 125 mg/m2 and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The response rate was 37.1% for lom-bev and 30.1% for iri-bev. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 23 weeks for lom-bev and 21 weeks for iri-bev (p = 0.9). Overall survival (OS) was 37 weeks for lom-bev and 32 weeks for iri-bev (p = 0.5). Lom-bev caused a significantly higher frequency of thrombocytopenia (11.4% grade 3-4) compared to iri-bev (3.5% grade 3-4). Iri-bev patients had more gastrointestinal toxicity with regard to nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation and stomatitis. Within the limitations of the study lom-bev is a well-tolerated treatment for recurrent GBM, although hematological toxicity may be a dose limiting factor. No significant differences between lom-bev and iri-bev were observed with regard to PFS or OS. The differences in toxicity profiles between lom-bev and iri-bev could guide treatment decision in recurrent GBM therapy as efficacy is equal and no predictive factors for efficacy exist. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 6 | 12% |
Researcher | 6 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
Other | 5 | 10% |
Unknown | 18 | 37% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
Neuroscience | 5 | 10% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Unknown | 19 | 39% |