Antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of recurrent or newly diagnosed glioblastoma: Analysis of single-agent and combined modality approaches

Surgical resection followed by radiotherapy and temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma can prolong survival, but it is not curative. For patients with disease progression after frontline therapy, there is no standard of care, although further surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy may be used. Antiangiogenic therapies may be appropriate for treating glioblastomas because angiogenesis is critical to tumor growth. In a large, noncomparative phase II trial, bevacizumab was evaluated alone and with irinotecan in patients with recurrent glioblastoma; combination treatment was associated with an estimated 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 50.3%, a median overall survival of 8.9 months, and a response rate of 37.8%. Single-agent bevacizumab also exceeded the predetermined threshold of activity for salvage chemotherapy (6-month PFS rate, 15%), achieving a 6-month PFS rate of 42.6% (p < 0.0001). On the basis of these results and those from another phase II trial, the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval of single-agent bevacizumab for the treatment of glioblastoma that has progressed following prior therapy. Potential antiangiogenic agents-such as cilengitide and XL184-also show evidence of single-agent activity in recurrent glioblastoma. Moreover, the use of antiangiogenic agents with radiation at disease progression may improve the therapeutic ratio of single-modality approaches. Overall, these agents appear to be well tolerated, with adverse event profiles similar to those reported in studies of other solid tumors. Further research is needed to determine the role of antiangiogenic therapy in frontline treatment and to identify the optimal schedule and partnering agents for use in combination therapy

PI3Kinase signaling in glioblastoma

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary tumor of the CNS in the adult. It is characterized by exponential growth and diffuse invasiveness. Among many different genetic alterations in GBM, e.g., mutations of PTEN, EGFR, p16/p19 and p53 and their impact on aberrant signaling have been thoroughly characterized. A major barrier to develop a common therapeutic strategy is founded on the fact that each tumor has its individual genetic fingerprint. Nonetheless, the PI3K pathway may represent a common therapeutic target to most GBM due to its central position in the signaling cascade affecting proliferation, apoptosis and migration. The read-out of blocking PI3K alone or in combination with other cancer pathways should mainly focus, besides the cytostatic effect, on cell death induction since sublethal damage may induce selection of more malignant clones. Targeting more than one pathway instead of a single agent approach may be more promising to kill GBM cells

Phase III study of enzastaurin compared with lomustine in the treatment of recurrent intracranial glioblastoma

PURPOSE: This phase III open-label study compared the efficacy and safety of enzastaurin versus lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (WHO grade 4). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 6-week cycles of enzastaurin 500 mg/d (1,125-mg loading dose, day 1) or lomustine (100 to 130 mg/m(2), day 1). Assuming a 45% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), 397 patients were required to provide 80% power to achieve statistical significance at a one-sided level of .025. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated at 266 patients (enzastaurin, n = 174; lomustine, n = 92) after a planned interim analysis for futility. Patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Median PFS (1.5 v 1.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.70), overall survival (6.6 v 7.1 months; HR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.65), and 6-month PFS rate (P = .13) did not differ significantly between enzastaurin and lomustine, respectively. Stable disease occurred in 38.5% and 35.9% of patients and objective response occurred in 2.9% and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Time to deterioration of physical and functional well-being and symptoms did not differ between arms (HR = 1.12; P = .54). Four patients discontinued enzastaurin because of drug-related serious adverse events (AEs). Eleven patients treated with enzastaurin died on study (four because of AEs; one was drug-related). All four deaths that occurred in patients receiving lomustine were disease-related. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities were significantly higher with lomustine (46 events) than with enzastaurin (one event; P < or = .001). CONCLUSION: Enzastaurin was well tolerated and had a better hematologic toxicity profile but did not have superior efficacy compared with lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma