4.5 Article

Salvage therapy with single agent bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 96, 期 2, 页码 259-269

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-009-9957-6

关键词

Single agent bevacizumab; Radiotherapy refractory; Recurrent glioblastoma; Surgery refractory; Temozolomide refractory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A retrospective evaluation of single agent bevacizumab in adults with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) with an objective of determining progression free survival (PFS). There is no standard therapy for recurrent GBM after failure of alkylator-based chemotherapy. A total of 50 adults, ages 36-70 years (median 64), with recurrent GBM were treated. All patients had previously been treated with surgery, concurrent radiotherapy and temozolomide, post-radiotherapy temozolomide and in 34 patients, one salvage regimen (PCV: 21, cyclophosphamide: 13). A total of 13 patients underwent repeat surgery. Patients were treated at first or second recurrence with bevacizumab, once every 2 weeks, defined as a single cycle. Neurological evaluation was performed every 2 weeks and neuroradiographic assessment following the initial 2 cycles of bevacizumab and subsequently after every 4 cycles of bevacizumab. A total of 468 cycles of bevacizumab (median 2 cycles; range 1-30) was administered. Bevacizumab-related toxicity included fatigue (16 patients; 4 grade 3), leukopenia (9; 1 grade 3), anemia (5; 0 grade 3), hypertension (7; 1 grade 3), deep vein thrombosis (4; 1 grade 3) and wound dehiscence (2; 1 grade 3). 21 patients (42%) demonstrated a partial radiographic response and 29 (58%) progressive disease following 1-2 cycles of bevacizumab. Time to tumor progression ranged from 0.5 to 15 months (median: 1.0 months). Survival ranged from 2 to 17 months (median: 8.5 months). 6-month and 12-month PFS were 42% and 22% respectively. Single agent bevacizumab demonstrated efficacy and acceptable toxicity in this cohort of adults with recurrent alkylator-refractory GBM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据