Patterns of bevacizumab use in patients with glioblastoma: an online survey among experts in neuro-oncology.
bevacizumab
clinical practice
glioblastoma
recurrent
survey
Journal
Neuro-oncology practice
ISSN: 2054-2577
Titre abrégé: Neurooncol Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101640528
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
entrez:
8
4
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
8
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Bevacizumab (BEV) received accelerated FDA approval in 2009 for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). Unfortunately, prospective randomized controlled phase 3 studies (AVAglio and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0825 in newly diagnosed, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26101 in rGBM) failed to show an overall survival benefit with BEV added to standard therapy. In light of these data, we aimed to capture current utilization patterns and perceived value of BEV in the treatment of GBM among experts in the field. An online questionnaire comprising 14 multiple choice questions was sent out in spring 2017 to 207 oncologists/neuro-oncologists treating patients with GBM at all National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in the United States. Sixty-two of 207 (30%) invitees responded (by training, 70% neuro-oncologists, 20% medical oncologists, 10% pediatric oncologists/neuro-oncologists). Participants reported use of BEV most frequently in rGBM for control of edema (85% of respondents) and/or when no other treatment options were available (68%). BEV is rarely used in newly diagnosed GBM (<5% of cases by 78% respondents and in 5% to 10% cases by 15% respondents). Sixty-six percent of participants indicated that they thought BEV improved symptoms, 30% that it improved symptoms and survival, 3% that it had no benefit in GBM patients. In this cross-sectional online survey we found that among neuro-oncology experts in the United States in 2017, BEV is predominantly utilized in select patients with rGBM, and is only rarely used in a small subgroup of patients with newly diagnosed GBM for control of edema. The low response rate may have introduced a nonresponse bias.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bevacizumab (BEV) received accelerated FDA approval in 2009 for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). Unfortunately, prospective randomized controlled phase 3 studies (AVAglio and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0825 in newly diagnosed, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26101 in rGBM) failed to show an overall survival benefit with BEV added to standard therapy. In light of these data, we aimed to capture current utilization patterns and perceived value of BEV in the treatment of GBM among experts in the field.
METHODS
METHODS
An online questionnaire comprising 14 multiple choice questions was sent out in spring 2017 to 207 oncologists/neuro-oncologists treating patients with GBM at all National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in the United States.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixty-two of 207 (30%) invitees responded (by training, 70% neuro-oncologists, 20% medical oncologists, 10% pediatric oncologists/neuro-oncologists). Participants reported use of BEV most frequently in rGBM for control of edema (85% of respondents) and/or when no other treatment options were available (68%). BEV is rarely used in newly diagnosed GBM (<5% of cases by 78% respondents and in 5% to 10% cases by 15% respondents). Sixty-six percent of participants indicated that they thought BEV improved symptoms, 30% that it improved symptoms and survival, 3% that it had no benefit in GBM patients.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In this cross-sectional online survey we found that among neuro-oncology experts in the United States in 2017, BEV is predominantly utilized in select patients with rGBM, and is only rarely used in a small subgroup of patients with newly diagnosed GBM for control of edema. The low response rate may have introduced a nonresponse bias.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32257284
doi: 10.1093/nop/npz022
pii: npz022
pmc: PMC7104881
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
52-58Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 1;27(28):4733-40
pubmed: 19720927
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Aug;15(9):943-53
pubmed: 25035291
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Sep 1;33(25):2735-44
pubmed: 26124478
Cancer. 2015 Apr 1;121(7):997-1007
pubmed: 25263092
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 16;377(20):1954-1963
pubmed: 29141164
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Feb 10;27(5):740-5
pubmed: 19114704
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 10;28(11):1963-72
pubmed: 20231676
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Feb 15;13(4):1253-9
pubmed: 17317837
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2572-8
pubmed: 10561324
J Neurosurg. 2012 Feb;116(2):341-5
pubmed: 22035272
Oncologist. 2009 Nov;14(11):1131-8
pubmed: 19897538
Brain. 2016 May;139(Pt 5):1458-71
pubmed: 27020328
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 10;29(2):142-8
pubmed: 21135282
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 10;34(14):1611-9
pubmed: 26976423
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):699-708
pubmed: 24552317
Acta Neuropathol. 2015 Jan;129(1):115-31
pubmed: 25322816
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Sep 1;75(1):156-63
pubmed: 19167838
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004 May;3(5):391-400
pubmed: 15136787
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96
pubmed: 15758009
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):709-22
pubmed: 24552318