-
Pharmacological Research Sep 2021Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature,...
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature, genetic heterogeneity, and protection by the blood brain barrier (BBB) have posed great treatment challenges. The standard treatment for GBMs is surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy. The robust DNA repair and self-renewing capabilities of glioblastoma cells and glioma initiating cells (GICs), respectively, promote resistance against all current treatment modalities. Thus, durable GBM management will require the invention of innovative treatment strategies. In this review, we will describe biological and molecular targets for GBM therapy, the current status of pharmacologic therapy, prominent mechanisms of resistance, and new treatment approaches. To date, medical imaging is primarily used to determine the location, size and macroscopic morphology of GBM before, during, and after therapy. In the future, molecular and cellular imaging approaches will more dynamically monitor the expression of molecular targets and/or immune responses in the tumor, thereby enabling more immediate adaptation of tumor-tailored, targeted therapies.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Glioblastoma; Humans
PubMed: 34302977
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105780 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Lomustine; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34559423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013579.pub2 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Inhibition of angiogenesis has been demonstrated to be an efficacious strategy in treating several tumors. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the most... (Review)
Review
Inhibition of angiogenesis has been demonstrated to be an efficacious strategy in treating several tumors. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the most important protein with proangiogenic functions and it is overexpressed in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, showed a promising activity in combination with etoposide and cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extended stage (ES)-SCLC and two randomized studies confirmed that bevacizumab improved PFS, but failed to prolong OS. Instead, disappointing results have been observed with endostar, sunitinib, sorafenib, vandetanib, and thalidomide in combination with chemotherapy in the first-line setting, with sunitinib in the maintenance setting, with sunitinib, cediranib and nintedanib as single agents or ziv-aflibercept in combination with topotecan in second-line setting. Only anlotinib improved OS and PFS as third-line therapy in Chinese patients with SCLC, and it was approved with this indication in China. Future challenges are the evaluation of the role of angiogenesis inhibitors in combination with immune- checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy in SCLC patients and the identification of predictive biomarkers of response to both agents.
PubMed: 34123809
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.655316 -
Clinical Cancer Research : An Official... Apr 2023Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options. We designed a phase II randomized trial to determine the activity and...
PURPOSE
Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options. We designed a phase II randomized trial to determine the activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib or sunitinib in patients with advanced metastatic ASPS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients 16 years of age and older were randomized to receive cediranib (30 mg) or sunitinib (37.5 mg) in 28-day cycles. Patients could cross over to the other treatment arm at disease progression. The primary endpoint was to measure the objective response rate (ORR) for each agent. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the two arms was also determined.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine of 34 enrolled patients were evaluable for response. One patient on each of the initial two treatment arms had a partial response (ORR: 6.7% and 7.1% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). Twenty-four patients had a best response of stable disease (86.7% and 78.6% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). There were no significant differences in mPFS for the two treatment arms. Clinical benefit (i.e., objective response or stable disease for a minimum of four or six cycles of therapy) on the first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy did not predict benefit on the second-line TKI. Both drugs were well tolerated. As of August 2021, 1 patient (unevaluable for ORR) remains on study.
CONCLUSIONS
The study did not meet its endpoints for ORR. Although both TKIs provided clinical benefit, the outcomes may have been attenuated in patients who had progressed ≤6 months before enrollment, potentially accounting for the low response rates. See related commentary by Wilky and Maleddu, p. 1163.
Topics: Humans; Sunitinib; Sarcoma, Alveolar Soft Part; Indoles; Quinazolines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 36302173
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-2145 -
The Oncologist Jul 2021Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma without known BRCA...
LESSONS LEARNED
Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma without known BRCA mutation.
BACKGROUND
Cediranib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of BRCA1/2 and RAD51 inducing homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) in several cancer cell lines and xenograft models [1]. Olaparib provides a clinical benefit in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) with germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmt) [2]. We hypothesized that cediranib induces HRD in the absence of gBRCAmt and synergizes with olaparib, resulting in an objective response in patients with mPDAC.
METHODS
Patients with mPDAC with at least one prior systemic chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients with known gBRCAmt were excluded. Patients took cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib 200 mg twice daily, orally. The primary endpoint was objective response (OR) rate.
RESULTS
Nineteen patients received the study drugs. Seven patients came off treatment before the first restaging scan: six because of clinical progression and one because of an adverse event. No OR was observed. Six patients had stable disease (SD) as a best overall response. The median duration of SD was 3.1 months. The median overall survival was 3.4 months. Common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, and diarrhea.
CONCLUSION
Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with mPDAC without gBRCAmt.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Female; Humans; Mutation; Ovarian Neoplasms; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Phthalazines; Piperazines; Quinazolines; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 33742489
DOI: 10.1002/onco.13758 -
OncoTargets and Therapy 2017Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine malignancy, has a rapid growth rate, strong aggressiveness, early metastases, and poor prognosis.... (Review)
Review
Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine malignancy, has a rapid growth rate, strong aggressiveness, early metastases, and poor prognosis. Angiogenesis greatly contributes to the metastatic process of SCLC, which has a higher vascularization compared with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). SCLC might constitute an ideal malignancy for assessing new antiangiogenic drugs and therapeutic strategies. Combining bevacizumab with paclitaxel has therapeutic benefits in chemoresistant, relapsed SCLC. The cisplatin-etoposide and bevacizumab combination, as the first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC, can improve progression-free survival (PFS), with an acceptable toxicity profile. Ziv-aflibercept combined with topotecan is promising for platinum-refractory SCLC. Chemotherapy combined with thalidomide cannot prolong survival. Maintenance sunitinib of 37.5 mg/day in extensive-stage SCLC patients following induction chemotherapy with platinum/etoposide improves median PFS by 1.6 months. Serum angiopoietin-2 concentrations and vascular endothelial growth factor levels correlate with poor prognosis. Bevacizumab, ziv-aflibercept, and sunitinib are worthy of further evaluation. Thalidomide, sorafenib, pomalidomide, and cediranib may not be suitable for SCLC.
PubMed: 28138259
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S119714 -
Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs May 2012Antiangiogenic approaches are currently the dominating experimental therapeutic strategy in glioblastoma. First enthusiasm was provoked by promising radiological... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Antiangiogenic approaches are currently the dominating experimental therapeutic strategy in glioblastoma. First enthusiasm was provoked by promising radiological response rates and an apparent clinical benefit with some of these agents. Major limitations include the modest number of durable responses, the lack of cytotoxic antitumor activity, of synergy when combined with chemotherapy and of an overall survival benefit.
AREAS COVERED
We review the rationale as well as preclinical and clinical evidence for the future development of antiangiogenic agents in glioblastoma. The most prominent approach targets VEGF and includes agents such as the VEGF antibody bevacizumab, the VEGF receptor fusion protein aflibercept or the tyrosine kinase inhibitors cediranib and XL-184. Inhibition of angiogenic pathways by small molecules, for example, enzastaurin, or anti-integrin-based approaches, for example, cilengitide, represent alternative strategies.
EXPERT OPINION
Enzastaurin and cediranib failed in randomized Phase III trials in recurrent glioblastoma, aflibercept in Phase II. By contrast, bevacizumab was conditionally approved in many countries. Recently completed Phase III trials for bevacizumab and cilengitide in the first-line setting will define the future role of these agents. This intense clinical trial activity reflects the hope that antiangiogenic agents will become part of the limited therapeutic options for glioblastoma.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Animals; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bevacizumab; Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Neovascularization, Pathologic
PubMed: 22413865
DOI: 10.1517/13543784.2012.670219 -
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Jun 2022This article investigates mechanisms of resistance to the VEGF receptor inhibitor cediranib in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), and defines rational combination...
This article investigates mechanisms of resistance to the VEGF receptor inhibitor cediranib in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), and defines rational combination therapies. We used three different syngeneic orthotopic mouse HGSOC models that replicated the human tumor microenvironment (TME). After 4 to 5 weeks treatment of established tumors, cediranib had antitumor activity with increased tumor T-cell infiltrates and alterations in myeloid cells. However, continued cediranib treatment did not change overall survival or the immune microenvironment in two of the three models. Moreover, treated mice developed additional peritoneal metastases not seen in controls. Cediranib-resistant tumors had intrinsically high levels of IL6 and JAK/STAT signaling and treatment increased endothelial STAT3 activation. Combination of cediranib with a murine anti-IL6 antibody was superior to monotherapy, increasing mouse survival, reducing blood vessel density, and pSTAT3, with increased T-cell infiltrates in both models. In a third HGSOC model, that had lower inherent IL6 JAK/STAT3 signaling in the TME but high programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) signaling, long-term cediranib treatment significantly increased overall survival. When the mice eventually relapsed, pSTAT3 was still reduced in the tumors but there were high levels of immune cell PD-1 and Programmed death-ligand 1. Combining cediranib with an anti-PD-1 antibody was superior to monotherapy in this model, increasing T cells and decreasing blood vessel densities. Bioinformatics analysis of two human HGSOC transcriptional datasets revealed distinct clusters of tumors with IL6 and PD-1 pathway expression patterns that replicated the mouse tumors. Combination of anti-IL6 or anti-PD-1 in these patients may increase activity of VEGFR inhibitors and prolong disease-free survival.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Animals; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Cell Line, Tumor; Female; Humans; Indoles; Interleukin-6; Mice; Ovarian Neoplasms; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Quinazolines; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 35313341
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-21-0689 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jul 2022Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Olaparib With or Without Cediranib Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer (NRG-GY004): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial.
PURPOSE
Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline -mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
RESULTS
Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; = .077). In women with germline mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed.
CONCLUSION
Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Indoles; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Neoplasms; Phthalazines; Piperazines; Platinum; Quinazolines
PubMed: 35290101
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.02011 -
The Netherlands Journal of Medicine Aug 2012Antiangiogenic therapy targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or its receptor (VEGFR) has proven its effect in the treatment of several types of cancer,... (Review)
Review
Antiangiogenic therapy targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or its receptor (VEGFR) has proven its effect in the treatment of several types of cancer, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, treatment can be accompanied by notable adverse effects. Mild proteinuria and hypertension are often seen, but sometimes nephrotic range proteinuria and÷or renal insufficiency develop. In recent years insight into the toxic effects of anti-VEGF therapy in the kidney has increased. A few biopsies have been done and thrombotic microangiopathy is reported in the majority of cases. However, other patterns of kidney injury have been described as illustrated by the case of a 62-year-old patient who presented two years after initiation of the VEGFR inhibitor cediranib with a nephrotic syndrome and acute renal failure. Kidney biopsy disclosed focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FS GS) and interstitial nephritis. Partial remission was achieved after stopping the cediranib and a short course of prednisone. We review the different forms of kidney injury that could be caused by anti-VEGF therapy.
Topics: Glomerulosclerosis, Focal Segmental; Humans; Kidney; Nephrotic Syndrome; Proteinuria; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 22859418
DOI: No ID Found