Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

CNS tumours

392 - Two different treatment options for patients with recurrent glioblastoma in the same hospital

Date

19 Dec 2015

Session

CNS tumours

Presenters

Patricia Ramirez

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2015) 26 (suppl_9): 34-36. 10.1093/annonc/mdv520

Authors

P. Ramirez1, I. Villanego2, I. Iglesias3, F. Rodriguez3, J.A. Lopez3, M. Morillas4, V. Lao3, J.L. Gil-Salu3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Hospital Puerta del Mar, 11009 - Cadiz/ES
  • 2 Oncology, Hospital Puerta del Mar, 11009 - Cadiz/ES
  • 3 Neurosurgery, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cadiz/ES
  • 4 Neurooncology, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cadiz/ES
More

Abstract 392

Aim/Background

The prognosis of recurrent glioblastoma (GB) is poor. The median survival with the Stupp protocol after progression is 3-6 months. After the implementation of a Neuro-Committee (CNON) in our center, second treatment options have changed life expectancy without reducing the quality of life.

Objectives: Show the selection criteria for second-line treatments in GB. Show overall survival (OS) for each treatment group.

Methods

We selected 18 patients with recurrent GB treated with surgery + radiotherapy + chemotherapy according Stupp protocol, between January 2010 and December 2013. After assessing the results in CNON, we differenciate two groups: Group 1 (n = 8), Patients who underwent surgical re-intervention + Carmustine implant polymers vs Group 2 (n = 10) those who could not benefit from surgery and received bevacizumab + Irinotecan. We analyzed 20 variables in each patient.

Results

In the Group 1 median OS was 10 months (CI 95%: 4,762-15.238), and the PFS was 8 months (CI 95% 5,228-10,772). In the Group 2 median OS was 35.15 months (CI 95%, 17.219 -53.081) and the FPS was 20 months (CI 95% 0 - 40.144 months). In both groups morbidity and toxicity were acceptable and the quality of life was no affected.

Conclusions

Since the establishment by the CNON of a protocol for monitoring and second-line treatment in patients with GB, the overall survival has increased significantly. Of the two options presented, it seems more benefit treatment with Avastin + irinotecan and although the sample size is small, we should think in the adoption of more aggressive therapeutic options in the future.

Clinical trial identification

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings