4.5 Article

Phase II open-label study of nintedanib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 111, Issue 2, Pages 205-212

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-012-1009-y

Keywords

Glioblastoma; Nintedanib (BIBF 1120); Angiogenesis inhibitors; Phase II clinical trial

Funding

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim
  2. Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nintedanib (BIBF 1120) is a small, orally available, triple angiokinase inhibitor in phase III development (various indications) that targets VEGFR 1-3, FGFR 1-3, and PDGFR-alpha/beta. This open-label, uncontrolled, phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) who had previously failed radiotherapy plus temozolomide as first-line therapy (STUPP), or the same regimen with subsequent bevacizumab-based therapy as second-line treatment (BEV). Patients with a performance status of 0-1, histologically proven GBM, and measurable disease (by RANO) were enrolled. Nintedanib was given orally at a dose of 200 mg twice daily (bid), with magnetic resonance imaging undertaken every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. The study was stopped prematurely following a preplanned futility analysis after inclusion of 13 patients in the STUPP arm and 12 in the BEV arm. Best response was stable disease (SD) in three patients (12 %); all other patients progressed within the first four 28-day cycles. One patient in the BEV arm has had SD for 17+ months. Median progression-free survival was 1 month and median overall survival was 6 months. Nintedanib had an acceptable safety profile, with no CTCAE grade 3-4 adverse events. Common adverse events were CTCAE grade 1-2 fatigue, loss of appetite, diarrhea, and nausea. Single-agent nintedanib (200 mg bid) demonstrated limited, but clinically non-relevant antitumor activity in patients with recurrent GBM who had failed 1-2 prior lines of therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available