scholarly journals Valganciclovir as Add-on to Second Line Therapy in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma

Author(s):  
Mattia Russel Pantalone ◽  
Afsar Rahbar ◽  
Cecilia Söderberg-Naucler ◽  
Giuseppe Stragliotto

Abstract IntroductionGlioblastoma invariably recurs despite aggressive and multimodal first line treatment and no standardized second line therapy exists. We previously reported that treatment with the antiviral drug valganciclovir as an add-on to standard therapy significantly prolonged overall survival in 102 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Here we present the results of retrospective survival analyses including patients with glioblastoma that initiated valganciclovir therapy after recurrence. MethodsBetween April 13, 2007 and March 31, 2021, 29 patients with recurrent glioblastoma received valganciclovir as an add-on to second line therapy. Contemporary controls were 111 patients with glioblastoma who received similar second line therapy at our institution. We retrospectively analyzed survival data of these patients. ResultsPatients with recurrent glioblastoma who received valganciclovir had longer median overall survival after recurrence than controls (12.1 vs 7.4 months, respectively, p=0.0017). The drug was well tolerated. Both patients who underwent re-operation and patients that were not re-operated after recurrence benefitted significantly from valganciclovir therapy. Valganciclovir prolonged survival after recurrence both in patients with an unmethylated or methylated MGMT promoter gene. ConclusionValganciclovir was safe to use and prolonged median survival after recurrence of patients with recurrent glioblastoma, re-operated or not after recurrence and with methylated or unmethylated MGMT promoter gene.

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2773
Author(s):  
Marta Padovan ◽  
Marica Eoli ◽  
Alessia Pellerino ◽  
Simona Rizzato ◽  
Claudia Caserta ◽  
...  

Background: Depatuxizumab Mafodotin (Depatux-M; ABT-414) is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of a specific antibody against activated EGFR and a cytotoxic agent with antimicrotubule activity. The INTELLANCE 2/EORTC 1410 phase 2 trial produced interesting results for the combination regimen of Depatux-M and temozolomide in EGFR-amplified glioblastoma patients at first recurrence. For the first time worldwide, our work investigated the clinical outcome and safety of this combination in a real-life population. Materials and Methods: Patients were enrolled from seven AINO (Italian Association of Neuro-Oncology) Institutions. The major inclusion criteria were: histologically confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma, EGFR-amplified, one or more prior systemic therapies and ECOG PS ≤ 2. According to the original schedule, patients received Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks combined with temozolomide. The primary endpoints of the study were overall survival and safety. Results: A total of 36 patients were enrolled. The median age was 57 years, ECOG PS was 0–1 in 28 patients (88%), MGMT methylated status was found in 22 (64%), 15 patients (42%) received the combined treatment as second-line therapy. The median OS was 8.04 months (95% CI, 5.3–10.7), the 12 month-OS was 37%. On univariate and multivariate analyses, the MGMT methylation status was the only factor resulting significantly associated with survival. Grade 3 ocular toxicity occurred in 11% of patients; no grade 4 ocular toxicity was reported. No death was considered to be drug-related. Conclusions: The study reported the first “real world” experience of Depatux-M plus temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Encouraging clinical benefits were demonstrated, even though most patients were treated beyond second-line therapy. Overall, the results are close to those reported in the previous phase 2 trial. Toxicity was moderate and manageable.


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1507-1507
Author(s):  
Rami S Komrokji ◽  
Maria G. Corrales-Yepez ◽  
Najla H Al Ali ◽  
Eric Padron ◽  
Jeffrey E Lancet ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide (LEN) is the standard of care for treatment of transfusion dependent lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with chromosome 5q deletion (del 5q). In the MDS-002 study, 26% of lower risk transfusion dependent MDS patients became red blood cell transfusion independent after LEN treatment. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines list LEN as a second line treatment alternative for transfusion dependent anemia in lower risk non-del 5q MDS after azanucleosides failure. The response rate to LEN after azanucleosides failure, however, is not known given that the MDS-002 study preceded FDA approval of azanucleosides. To address the best sequence of LEN to optimize response potential in lower risk MDS, we examined the response rates to LEN in non-del 5q lower risk MDS when offered as first line after (erythroid stimulating agents) ESA's or after azacitidine failure. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted using the Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) MDS database. We identified patients with lower risk MDS who received both LEN and azacitidine as first or second line therapy after erythroid stimulating agents. Lower risk MDS was defined according to the international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) Low or intermediate-1 (int-1) risk groups. The primary endpoint was to compare rates of erythroid hematological improvement (HI-E) between the group of patients who received LEN as first line therapy followed by azacitidine as second line (LEN 1st line group) and those who received LEN as second line therapy after azacitidine (LEN 2nd line group). HI was defined according to international working group criteria (IWG 2006). Chi- square test was used for categorical variables, T-test was used for continuous variables, and Kaplan Meier estimates for overall survival. All analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software (IBM version 21) Results We identified 63 patients who received both azacitidine and LEN as first and second line where 37 patients were in group 1 (LEN 1st line) and 26 patients were in group 2 (LEN 2nd line). Baseline characteristics between the two groups are summarized in Table-1. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of mean age at diagnosis, gender, WHO subtype, revised IPSS, or mean blood counts. The majority of patients had refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (RCMD) and had low risk revised IPSS . The rate of HI-E was 38% (n=14) among LEN 1st line group compared to 12% (n=3) in LEN 2nd line group. (p=0.04). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) among the two groups with a median OS of 104 months and 87 months, respectively, p=0.55. There was no difference in AML transformation rate, 5.4% (n=2) and 11% (n=3) among the two groups, respectively, p=0.33. There were no differences in response rates to azacitidine among the two groups. Among the Len 1st line group response to 2nd line azacitidine was 38% (n=14) compared to 35% (n=9) among those who received azacitidine as first line followed by LEN as 2nd line. (p=0.69). Conclusion LEN yields a higher rate of HI-E in non-del 5q lower risk MDS when used as first line therapy. If validated in a larger cohort, LEN should be considered for 1st line therapy after ESAs rather than after azacitidine failure. Responses to azacitidine were similar among the two groups, indicating no adverse effect of LEN on azacitidine response. Disclosures: Komrokji: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: use of lenalidomide in non del 5q. Lancet:Celgene: Research Funding. List:Celgene: Research Funding.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
Hui-Li Wong ◽  
Ying Wang ◽  
Yaling Yin ◽  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
...  

468 Background: Chemotherapy options currently available for the first-line treatment of advanced PDAC include FOLFIRINOX (FX), gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GP) and single agent gemcitabine (Gem). GP was introduced most recently and funded for clinical use in British Columbia (BC) in September 2014. In this retrospective analysis, we explore the impact of GP availability on first-line treatment selection and overall survival (OS) in advanced PDAC. Methods: The BC Cancer Agency provincial pharmacy database was used to identify patients (pts) who started FX, GP or Gem between January and August 2014 (pre-GP) or January and August 2015 (post-GP). Pts were eligible for inclusion if they received at least one cycle of first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. OS was defined as time from diagnosis of advanced PDAC to death and compared by treatment era, adjusting for age, ECOG, comorbidities, disease extent and baseline CA19-9. Results: 286 pts fulfilled eligibility criteria: 88 (31%) with locally advanced and 198 (69%) with metastatic disease. 131 and 155 pts were treated in the pre- and post-GP eras respectively. Prior to GP approval, 44% and 49% of pts received Gem and FX; this decreased to 21% and 33% after GP funding, with 46% of pts receiving GP in the latter period. Nine (7%) pts received GP in the pre-GP era, either through self-pay or addition of nab-paclitaxel after approval. There were no significant differences in pt characteristics across both eras. 46% of pts who received GP post approval had ECOG ≥ 2. The proportion of pts receiving second-line therapy was lower in the post-GP era (22% vs. 38%). Median OS in the post-GP era was 8.1 vs. 10.1 months in the pre-GP era; adjusted HR 1.28 (95% CI 0.96–1.71). Pts with ECOG ≥ 2 who received GP had a median OS of 6.5 months. Conclusions: After GP was funded, it became the preferred first-line regimen for advanced PDAC. Its more frequent use instead of FX did not appear to compromise overall survival even though a substantial proportion of pts were ECOG ≥ 2 and few pts received second-line therapy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 421-421
Author(s):  
Christopher Larson ◽  
Tony R. Reid

421 Background: The options for treatment of pancreatic cancer follow progression on first line therapy are limited and associated with significant toxicity. Erlotinib has been approved for treatment of pancreatic cancer in first-line therapy. We conducted a phase I dose-escalation trial of erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine for patients that had failed first-line therapy. Erlotinib was administered by a novel pulse-dose schedule where the drug was given orally for 3 days every two weeks. Purpose: Assess the safety and determine a recommended phase II dose for pulsed high dose erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer, and obtain preliminary data on activity. Methods: Patients with pancreatic cancer that progressed on or after first-line therapy were treated in a dose escalation study with erlotinib at 750 to 2,000 mg daily for three days every two weeks in combination with weekly gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m2 for three weeks on and one week off. Results: No dose limiting toxicities were encountered and erlotinib-induced rash was mild and transient. Median overall survival was 6.7 months and 12-month overall survival was 27%. Progression free survival but not overall survival was longer in patients who did not previously receive gemcitabine. Rash was not associated with longer survival. Conclusions: The recommended phase II dose is erlotinib 2,000 mg daily for three consecutive days every two weeks in combination with gemcitabine. Tolerability was excellent, and outcomes were better than expected for second-line therapy in pancreatic cancer. Further studies are warranted, both as therapy after first-line and as first-line therapy for patients unable to tolerate more aggressive regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02154737.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21600-e21600
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Zhai ◽  
Yaru Tian ◽  
Weiwei Yan ◽  
Ning An ◽  
Hui Zhu

e21600 Background: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy has been approved as second line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study aims to compare clinical outcome of PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy as 2nd/subsequent line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Methods: The clinical data of NSCLC patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy were retrospectively collected in our study. According to the therapy modality, patients were assigned to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Disease control rates (DCRs), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between the 2 groups. The prognostic role of derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) on the outcomes was also evaluated at the same time. Results: From April 2017 to October 2019, a total of 84 patients were enrolled in the current study. Twenty-six patients were allocated to the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and fifty-eight patients were allocated to PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Chemotherapy regimens were detailed as follow: liposome paclitaxel (n = 15), nab-paclitaxel(n = 12), docetaxel(n = 9), pemetrexed(n = 6), and others(n = 16). Disease control rates (DCRs) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the two groups. Progression free survival (PFS) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy was longer(median PFS: NR vs 4.4 months, p = 0.02). Univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) was independent prognostic factor of OS and gender was independent prognostic factor of PFS. In the second-line therapy subgroup of 38 patients, OS and PFS were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of 46 patients of over 2nd line, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group had longer PFS (median PFS: NR vs 4.0 months, p = 0.01).The incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was no significant difference in the two groups. One patient in the PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group died of immune-related pneumonitis. Conclusions: The addition of chemotherapy to PD-1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy had similar clinical outcomes compared with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy of advanced NSCLC patients.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 275-275
Author(s):  
Osama E. Rahma ◽  
David J. Liewehr ◽  
Seth M. Steinberg ◽  
Austin G. Duffy ◽  
Tim F Greten

275 Background: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers with an estimated 5 years survival rate of 5%. Until recently gemcitabine had been considered the first line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Although many chemotherapy regimens have been used there is no standard of care for second line therapy. The aim of this analysis was to identify superior regimen in the second line setting. Methods: We conducted a general search on PubMed for “second line therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer”. We limited our search to trials published in English from 2000 through 2012. Studies presented as abstracts in major meetings were also included. Trials that used targeted therapy other than erlotinib were excluded. We compared in an exploratory fashion the RR, PFS and OS of BSC and each of the following regimens to the rest of the treatments: 5FU+platinum, gemcitabine+platinum, taxol, erlotinib. In addition, we compared the combinations of platinum with either 5FU or gemcitabine. Finally, we explored the trend of these treatments outcomes over time. Results: Forty-four trialswere identified, of which 34 trials (T) met the inclusion criteria treating 1503 patients (N). There was a trend toward an improved overall survival with treatments (T: 33; N: 1269) compared to BSC (T: 2; N: 234) only (P= 0.013). The combination of gemcitabine and platinum (T: 5; N: 154) was the only regimen that showed a trend toward superior outcomes compared to the other regimens (T: 28; N: 1115) in terms of RR and PFS (P= 0.006 and 0.059, respectively). However, there was no difference in overall survival (P= 0.10). When compared to 5FU+platinum (T: 12; N: 450) the regimen of gemcitabine+platinum (T: 5; N: 154) showed only a trend toward significance in terms of improved RR (P= 0.030) with no difference in PFS or OS (P= 0.60 and 0.22, respectively). Overall, there was a trend toward a worse RR and PFS with no change in OS over the past 13 years. Conclusions: The combination of gemcitabine and platinum may provide a valid second line option in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who progress on gemcitabine.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 619-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaldigul Smagulova

619 Background: Advances in molecular biology and a wide introduction to the practice of targeted therapies have improved outcomes and significantly affect the overall survival of patients. To investigate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) beyond first progression combined with chemotherapy (CT) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: 68 patients with mCRC who received chemotherapy treatment at the Department of the Kazakh Research Institute of Oncology and Radiology. Selecting second-line chemotherapy based on oxaliplatin or irinotecan depended of an earlier first-line therapy (FOLFOX, FOLFIRI). The survival rate was calculated by Kaplan-Meier, comparison of survival curves was performed by log-rank. Results: The study included 68 patients, who were randomized from February 2009 to November 2011(to 33 [48.5%] BEV + CT and 35 [51.5%] to CT alone). Analysis of the immediate results of treatment showed that in neither case was not achieved complete response of the tumor. Partial regression in group 1 – 11 (33.3 ± 8.2)%, and group 2 - in 9 (25.7 ± 7.3)%. Stabilization is achieved in 20 (60.6 ± 8.5)% and 23 (6.7 ± 8.0)% of cases, respectively. The progression of the disease was observed in the group 1 in 2 (6.1 ± 4.1)% and 3 (8.6 ± 4.7)% of cases. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months (7-16) and 12.2 months in group 1, and 9.7 months (6-13.2) (PFS), 9.1 months(OS) in group 2, respectively. The adverse event profile was consistent with previously reported data for BEV + CT. BEV-related significant adverse events included bleeding grade 3-4 (1.5 %) and venous thrombosis (2.3 %). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that BEV + CT continued beyond progression significantly prolong OS and PFS in second-line therapy mCRC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document