Bevacizumab as a treatment option for radiation necrosis after cranial radiation therapy: a retrospective monocentric analysis.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Bevacizumab
/ therapeutic use
Brain
/ diagnostic imaging
Cohort Studies
Cranial Irradiation
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Necrosis
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Radiation Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Retrospective Studies
Antiedematous treatment
Brain metastases
High-grade glioma
Stereotactic radiosurgery
Vascular endothelial growth factor
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
23
05
2019
accepted:
11
09
2019
pubmed:
6
10
2019
medline:
13
6
2020
entrez:
6
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Radiation necrosis is a possible adverse event after cranial radiation therapy and can cause severe symptoms, such as an increased intracranial pressure or neurological deterioration. The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) has been shown to be a feasible therapeutic option for symptomatic radiation necrosis, either when traditional antiedematous steroid treatment fails, or as an alternative to steroid treatment. However, to the best of our knowledge, only one randomized study with a rather small cohort exists to prove a beneficial effect in this setting. Therefore, further real-life data are needed. This retrospective monocentric case study evaluates patients who received BEV due to radiation necrosis, with a specific focus on the respective clinical course. Using the internal database for pharmaceutical products, all patients who received BEV in our department were identified. Only patients who received BEV as symptomatic treatment for radiation necrosis were included. Patient characteristics, symptoms before, during, and after treatment, and the use of dexamethasone were evaluated using medical reports and systematic internal documentation. The symptoms were graded using CTCAE version 5.0 for general neurological symptoms. Symptoms were graded directly before each cycle and after the treatment (approximately 6 weeks). Additionally, the daily steroid dose was collected at these timepoints. Patients who either improved in symptoms, received less dexamethasone after treatment, or both were considered to have a benefit from the treatment. Twenty-one patients who received BEV due to radiation necrosis were identified. For 10 patients (47.6%) symptoms improved and 11 patients (52.4%) remained clinically stable during the treatment. In 14 patients (66.7%) the dexamethasone dose could be reduced during therapy, 5 patients (23.8%) received the same dose of dexamethasone before and after the treatment, and 2 patients (9.5%) received a higher dose at the end of the treatment. According to this analysis, overall, 19 patients (90.5%) benefited from the treatment with BEV. No severe adverse effects were reported. BEV might be an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with radiation necrosis as a complication after cranial radiation therapy. Patients seem to benefit from this treatment by improving symptomatically or through reduction of dexamethasone.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Radiation necrosis is a possible adverse event after cranial radiation therapy and can cause severe symptoms, such as an increased intracranial pressure or neurological deterioration. The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) has been shown to be a feasible therapeutic option for symptomatic radiation necrosis, either when traditional antiedematous steroid treatment fails, or as an alternative to steroid treatment. However, to the best of our knowledge, only one randomized study with a rather small cohort exists to prove a beneficial effect in this setting. Therefore, further real-life data are needed. This retrospective monocentric case study evaluates patients who received BEV due to radiation necrosis, with a specific focus on the respective clinical course.
METHODS
METHODS
Using the internal database for pharmaceutical products, all patients who received BEV in our department were identified. Only patients who received BEV as symptomatic treatment for radiation necrosis were included. Patient characteristics, symptoms before, during, and after treatment, and the use of dexamethasone were evaluated using medical reports and systematic internal documentation. The symptoms were graded using CTCAE version 5.0 for general neurological symptoms. Symptoms were graded directly before each cycle and after the treatment (approximately 6 weeks). Additionally, the daily steroid dose was collected at these timepoints. Patients who either improved in symptoms, received less dexamethasone after treatment, or both were considered to have a benefit from the treatment.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-one patients who received BEV due to radiation necrosis were identified. For 10 patients (47.6%) symptoms improved and 11 patients (52.4%) remained clinically stable during the treatment. In 14 patients (66.7%) the dexamethasone dose could be reduced during therapy, 5 patients (23.8%) received the same dose of dexamethasone before and after the treatment, and 2 patients (9.5%) received a higher dose at the end of the treatment. According to this analysis, overall, 19 patients (90.5%) benefited from the treatment with BEV. No severe adverse effects were reported.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
BEV might be an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with radiation necrosis as a complication after cranial radiation therapy. Patients seem to benefit from this treatment by improving symptomatically or through reduction of dexamethasone.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31586230
doi: 10.1007/s00066-019-01521-x
pii: 10.1007/s00066-019-01521-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bevacizumab
2S9ZZM9Q9V
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
70-76Références
Neurologist. 2003 Jul;9(4):180-8
pubmed: 12864928
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Apr 1;79(5):1487-95
pubmed: 20399573
Cancer Res. 2001 Jan 1;61(1):39-44
pubmed: 11196192
J Neurooncol. 2014 Apr;117(2):337-45
pubmed: 24504501
Neurooncol Pract. 2016 Dec;3(4):272-280
pubmed: 27833757
J Neurooncol. 2017 May;133(1):9-16
pubmed: 28425047
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1981 Feb;7(2):243-52
pubmed: 6260715
Strahlenther Onkol. 2011 Feb;187(2):135-9
pubmed: 21336713
Am J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun;38(3):304-10
pubmed: 23799286
J Neurooncol. 2015 Oct;125(1):149-56
pubmed: 26307446
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Sep 1;75(1):156-63
pubmed: 19167838
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):709-22
pubmed: 24552318
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jun 1;65(2):499-508
pubmed: 16517093
Brain. 2016 May;139(Pt 5):1458-71
pubmed: 27020328
Lancet Neurol. 2003 Jun;2(6):357-65
pubmed: 12849152
Neuro Oncol. 2019 May 6;21(5):585-595
pubmed: 30615138
Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov. 2017;12(3):272-277
pubmed: 28443515
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 12;6:24364
pubmed: 27067388
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Feb 1;67(2):323-6
pubmed: 17236958
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Nov 15;75(4):1148-54
pubmed: 19857784
J Neurooncol. 2004 May;68(1):41-7
pubmed: 15174520
Neurology. 2004 Aug 10;63(3):535-7
pubmed: 15304589
J Korean Med Sci. 2004 Dec;19(6):879-86
pubmed: 15608402
J Neurooncol. 2016 Dec;130(3):591-599
pubmed: 27599828
J Clin Med Res. 2017 Apr;9(4):273-280
pubmed: 28270886