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

E-Poster Display

375P - Chemotherapy options for recurrent glioblastoma

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

Cytotoxic Therapy

Tumour Site

Central Nervous System Malignancies

Presenters

Alexander Pawsey

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S396-S408. 10.1016/annonc/annonc269

Authors

A.K.M. Pawsey1, P. Gkogkou1, K. Geropantas2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Oncology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, NR4 - UY/GB
  • 2 Oncology Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, NR4 7UY - Norwich/GB

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 375P

Background

Most patients with glioblastoma will develop a recurrence despite initial aggressive therapy with maximum surgical resection and postoperative chemoradiation (CRT). A re-excision is often not feasible but palliative chemotherapy can be considered depending on fitness etc. In the absence of level 1 evidence, different chemotherapy regimens have been used in this setting. The aim of this study is to evaluate our approach which includes re-challenge temozolomide (TMZ) for patients with DFS >6 months after initial therapy and procarbazine/lomustine/vinctistine (PCV) for those exhibiting shorter responses to initial treatment.

Methods

We retrospectively collected and analysed the data of patients with glioblastoma treated with systemic therapy for recurrent disease during 2009-2019. After the initial diagnosis, they all had a surgical resection and received treatment on the Stupp protocol. The Response Assessment in Neuro-oncology (RANO) criteria was used to assess response to palliative chemotherapy after recurrence. Patient demographics and disease/treatment characteristics were described and survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Haematological toxicities were recorded and chemotherapy-related admission rates were used as surrogate for other toxicities.

Results

56 patients were identified of which 20 received re-challenge TMZ and 36 received PCV. Measured from the start of palliative chemotherapy, the median PFS was 3 months for TMZ and 4 months for PCV while median OS was 5.5 months for TMZ and 6 months for PCV. Both regimens were reasonably well tolerated. Grade 3-4 haematological toxicity was 10% and Grade 1-2 was 25% with TMZ. Corresponding figures for PCV were 13.9% and 30%. Only 1 patient was admitted due to pneumonia (who had received PCV).

Conclusions

Re-challenging patients with recurrent glioblastoma with TMZ after a durable initial response to surgery + CRT and offering PCV to those with a less good response to primary therapy is a reasonable, pragmatic approach adopted by a lot of UK cancer centres. Our toxicity data suggests this treatment protocol is safe. Of interest, patients treated with re-challenge TMZ had the same PFS and OS as their PCV counterparts despite belonging in a theoretically better prognosis group.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

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
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.