Advertisement

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

, Volume 144, Issue 8, pp 1581–1589 | Cite as

Tumor growth patterns of MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma in the randomized GLARIUS trial

  • Christina Schaub
  • Sied Kebir
  • Nina Junold
  • Elke Hattingen
  • Niklas Schäfer
  • Joachim P. Steinbach
  • Astrid Weyerbrock
  • Peter Hau
  • Roland Goldbrunner
  • Michael Niessen
  • Frederic Mack
  • Moritz Stuplich
  • Theophilos Tzaridis
  • Oliver Bähr
  • Rolf-Dieter Kortmann
  • Uwe Schlegel
  • Friederike Schmidt-Graf
  • Veit Rohde
  • Christian Braun
  • Mathias Hänel
  • Michael Sabel
  • Rüdiger Gerlach
  • Dietmar Krex
  • Claus Belka
  • Hartmut Vatter
  • Martin Proescholdt
  • Ulrich Herrlinger
  • Martin Glas
Original Article – Clinical Oncology
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

Background

We evaluated patterns of tumor growth in patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma who were assigned to undergo radiotherapy in conjunction with bevacizumab/irinotecan (BEV/IRI) or standard temozolomide (TMZ) within the randomized phase II GLARIUS trial.

Methods

In 142 patients (94 BEV/IRI, 48 TMZ), we reviewed magnetic resonance imaging scans at baseline and first tumor recurrence. Based on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images, we assessed tumor growth patterns and tumor invasiveness. Tumor growth patterns were classified as either multifocal or local at baseline and recurrence; at first recurrence, we additionally assessed whether distant lesions appeared. Invasiveness was determined as either diffuse or non-diffuse. Associations with treatment arms were calculated using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

At baseline, 115 of 142 evaluable patients (81%) had a locally confined tumor. Between treatment arms, there was no significant difference in the fraction of tumors that changed from an initially local tumor growth pattern to a multifocal pattern (12 and 13%, p = 0.55). Distant lesions appeared in 17% (BEV/IRI) and 13% (TMZ) of patients (p = 0.69). 15% of patients in the BEV/IRI arm and 8% in the TMZ arm developed a diffuse growth pattern from an initially non-diffuse pattern (p = 0.42).

Conclusions

The tumor growth and invasiveness patterns do not differ between BEV/IRI and TMZ-treated MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma patients in the GLARIUS trial. BEV/IRI was not associated with an increased rate of multifocal, distant, or highly invasive tumors at the time of recurrence.

Keywords

Bevacizumab Newly diagnosed MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma MRI tumor growth patterns Progression patterns 

Notes

Author Contributions

CS acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, manuscript writing. SK cquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, manuscript writing. NJ acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data. EH acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. NS cquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. JPS acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. AW acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. PH acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. RG acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. MN acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. FM acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. MS acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. TT acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. OB acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. RDK acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. US acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. FSG acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. VR acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. CB acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. MH acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. MS acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. RG acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. DK acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. CB acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. HV acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. MP acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. UH acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision, study concept and design. MG acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision, study concept and design.

Funding

Christina Schaub, no relationship to disclose. Sied Kebir, no relationship to disclose. Nina Junold, no relationship to disclose. Elke Hattingen, no relationship to disclose. Niklas Schäfer, Honoraria: Roche Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche. Joachim P. Steinbach, Honoraria: Medac. Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Mundipharma, Speakers’ Bureau: Medac. Research Funding: Merck, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Medac,. Astrid Weyerbrock. Research Funding: Roche Pharma AG, Expert Testimony: Roche Pharma AG. Peter Hau, Honoraria: Roche, Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, BMS, Novocure, Speakers’ Bureau: Roche, Novocure, Medac. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novocure, Medac. Roland Goldbrunner. Consulting or Advisory Role: Magforce, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Magforce, Roche. Michael Niessen, no relationship to disclose. Frederic Mack, Honoraria: Roche, Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Research Funding: Roche. Moritz Stuplich, no relationship to disclose. Theophilos Tzaridis, no relationship to disclose. Oliver Bähr, no relationship to disclose. Rolf-Dieter Kortmann, no relationship to disclose. Uwe Schlegel, Honoraria: Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Medac, Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Medac. Friederike Schmidt-Graf, no relationship to disclose. Veit Rohde, no relationship to disclose. Christian Braun, no relationship to disclose. Mathias Hänel, no relationship to disclose. Michael Sabel, no relationship to disclose. Rüdiger Gerlach. Honoraria: CSL Behring, Bayer, Medtronic. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer. Dietmar Krex Honoraria: Northwest Biotherapeutics. Consulting or Advisory Role: Baxter. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novocure. Claus Belka, no relationship to disclose Hartmut Vatter, no relationship to disclose. Martin Proescholdt. Employment: Roche, Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Ulrich Herrlinger. Honoraria: Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma. Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma. Speakers’ Bureau: Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma, Medac. Research Funding: Roche Pharma AG, Medac. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Pharma AG. Martin Glas. Honoraria: Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis AG, Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Medac.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Ulrich Herrlinger has served as a consultant for Roche, Novocure, Mundipharma, Noxxon and Bristol-Myers-Squibb. He has received a scientific grant from Roche and speakers honoraria from Roche, Medac, and Riemser Pharma. Martin Glas has served as a consultant for Roche, Novartis, Mundipharma, sigma tau and UCB Corporation. He has received speakers honoraria from Roche, Medac and sigma tau, and a scientific grant from Medac. Niklas Schäfer received honoraria from Roche. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

GLARIUS was a randomized, controlled, unblinded, phase II trial (EudraCT No. 2009010390-21; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00967330) approved by ethic committees of all participating centers. All patients gave written informed consent. All trial procedures adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and the Guidelines of Good Clinical Practice. An independent data monitoring and safety board constantly reviewed all safety-relevant information.The trial was funded by Roche Pharmaceuticals. Data collection was performed by an independent clinical research organization funded by Roche. The principal investigator (U.H.) had full access to the data, reviewed all data, and had the final responsibility for manuscript submission.

Statement of translational relevance

There is conflicting data as to whether angiogenesis inhibitors such as bevacizumab induce more distant and/or invasive recurrent tumors as compared to alkylating standard chemotherapy in malignant glioma. In recurrent glioblastoma, a radiographically determined increase in distant and infiltrative growth pattern has been linked to bevacizumab treatment. However, almost all these data stem from uncontrolled retrospective observations after failure of standard alkylating chemotherapy with temozolomide. Given bevacizumab treatment has become a standard in the recurrence scenario, it is important to shed light on this issue. To this end, we assessed the tumor growth patterns at first recurrence of patients in the GLARIUS trial, a randomized phase II trial comparing treatment with bevacizumab/irinotecan vs standard temozolomide in MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma. We show that recurrence patterns (invasiveness and tumor growth) are similar in both groups, thus not supporting the hypothesis of a bevacizumab induced invasive or distant tumor recurrence phenotype.

References

  1. Berkman RA, Merrill MJ, Reinhold WC et al (1993) Expression of the vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor gene in central nervous system neoplasms. J Clin Invest 91:153–159CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W et al (2014) Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. New Engl J Med 370:709–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Claes A, Idema AJ, Wesseling P (2007) Diffuse glioma growth: a guerilla war. Acta Neuropathol 114:443–458CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY et al (2009) Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 27:4733–4740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilbert MR, Dignam JJ, Armstrong TS et al (2014) A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370:699–708CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Herrlinger U, Schafer N, Steinbach JP et al (2016) Bevacizumab plus irinotecan versus temozolomide in newly diagnosed O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase nonmethylated glioblastoma: the randomized GLARIUS trial. J Clin Oncol 34:1611–1619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Iwamoto FM, Abrey LE, Beal K et al (2009) Patterns of relapse and prognosis after bevacizumab failure in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology 73:1200–1206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Kunkel P, Ulbricht U, Bohlen P et al (2001) Inhibition of glioma angiogenesis and growth in vivo by systemic treatment with a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. Cancer Res 61:6624–6628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lamszus K, Brockmann MA, Eckerich C et al (2005) Inhibition of glioblastoma angiogenesis and invasion by combined treatments directed against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and vascular endothelial-cadherin. Clin Cancer Res 11:4934–4940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Narayana A, Kelly P, Golfinos J et al (2009) Antiangiogenic therapy using bevacizumab in recurrent high-grade glioma: impact on local control and patient survival. J Neurosurg 110:173–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K et al (2008) Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology 70:779–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Nowosielski M, Wiestler B, Goebel G et al (2014) Progression types after antiangiogenic therapy are related to outcome in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology 82:1684–1692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P et al (2014) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007–2011. Neuro Oncol 16(Suppl 4):iv1-63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Paez-Ribes M, Allen E, Hudock J et al (2009) Antiangiogenic therapy elicits malignant progression of tumors to increased local invasion and distant metastasis. Cancer Cell 15:220–231CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Plate KH, Breier G, Weich HA, Risau W (1992) Vascular endothelial growth factor is a potential tumour angiogenesis factor in human gliomas in vivo. Nature 359:845–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pope WB, Xia Q, Paton VE et al (2011) Patterns of progression in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neurology 76:432–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rubenstein JL, Kim J, Ozawa T et al (2000) Anti-VEGF antibody treatment of glioblastoma prolongs survival but results in increased vascular cooption. Neoplasia 2:306–314CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Schaub C, Greschus S, Seifert M et al (2013) FLAIR-only progression in bevacizumab-treated relapsing glioblastoma does not predict short survival. Oncology 85:191–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP et al (2009) Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol 10:459–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE (2007) Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 25:4722–4729 nd, et al.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wen PY, Kesari S (2008) Malignant gliomas in adults. N Engl J Med 359:492–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wick A, Dorner N, Schafer N et al (2011) Bevacizumab does not increase the risk of remote relapse in malignant glioma. Ann Neurol 69:586–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wick W, Chinot OL, Bendszus M et al (2016) Evaluation of pseudoprogression rates and tumor progression patterns in a phase III trial of bevacizumab plus radiotherapy/temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 18:1434–1441CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Zuniga RM, Torcuator R, Jain R et al (2009) Efficacy, safety and patterns of response and recurrence in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab plus irinotecan. J Neurooncol 91:329–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Schaub
    • 1
  • Sied Kebir
    • 1
    • 2
    • 20
  • Nina Junold
    • 1
  • Elke Hattingen
    • 3
  • Niklas Schäfer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joachim P. Steinbach
    • 4
  • Astrid Weyerbrock
    • 5
  • Peter Hau
    • 6
  • Roland Goldbrunner
    • 7
  • Michael Niessen
    • 1
  • Frederic Mack
    • 1
  • Moritz Stuplich
    • 1
  • Theophilos Tzaridis
    • 1
  • Oliver Bähr
    • 4
  • Rolf-Dieter Kortmann
    • 8
  • Uwe Schlegel
    • 9
  • Friederike Schmidt-Graf
    • 10
  • Veit Rohde
    • 11
  • Christian Braun
    • 12
  • Mathias Hänel
    • 13
  • Michael Sabel
    • 14
  • Rüdiger Gerlach
    • 15
  • Dietmar Krex
    • 16
  • Claus Belka
    • 17
  • Hartmut Vatter
    • 18
  • Martin Proescholdt
    • 19
  • Ulrich Herrlinger
    • 1
  • Martin Glas
    • 1
    • 2
    • 20
  1. 1.Division of Clinical Neurooncology, Department of NeurologyUniversity of Bonn Medical CenterBonnGermany
  2. 2.West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen and German Cancer Consortium, Partner Site University Hospital EssenUniversity Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.Neuroradiology; Department of RadiologyUniversity of Bonn Medical CenterBonnGermany
  4. 4.Dr. Senckenberg Institute of NeurooncologyUniversity of FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  5. 5.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  6. 6.Department of Neurology and Wilhelm Sander NeuroOncology UnitUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  7. 7.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  8. 8.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  9. 9.Department of NeurologyKnappschaftskrankenhaus Klinikum der Ruhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  10. 10.Department of Neurology, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University of Munich (TUM)MunichGermany
  11. 11.Department of NeurosurgeryGeorg-August-UniversityGöttingenGermany
  12. 12.Department of NeurologyUniversity Hospital TübingenTübingenGermany
  13. 13.Department of Internal Medicine IIIKlinikum Chemnitz gGmbHChemnitzGermany
  14. 14.Department of Neurosurgery, Medizinische FakultätHeinrich-Heine-UniversitätDüsseldorfGermany
  15. 15.Department of NeurosurgeryHELIOS Klinikum ErfurtErfurtGermany
  16. 16.Department of NeurosurgeryTechnical University DresdenDresdenGermany
  17. 17.Department of Radiation OncologyLMU MunichMunichGermany
  18. 18.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Bonn Medical CenterBonnGermany
  19. 19.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  20. 20.Division of Clinical Neurooncology, Department of NeurologyUniversity Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations