Phase II trial of triple tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor nintedanib in recurrent high-grade gliomas.

Bevacizumab is FDA-approved for patients with recurrent GBM. However, the median duration of response is only 4 months. Potential mechanisms of resistance include upregulated FGF signaling and increased PDGF-mediated pericyte coverage. Nintedanib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of PDGFR α/ß, FGFR 1-3, and VEGFR 1-3 that may overcome resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. This was a two-stage phase II trial in adults with first or second recurrence of GBM, stratified by prior bevacizumab therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01380782; 1199.94). The primary endpoint was PFS6 in the bevacizumab-naive arm (Arm A) and PFS3 in the post-bevacizumab arm (Arm B). Up to 10 anaplastic glioma (AG) patients were accrued to each arm in exploratory cohorts. Twenty-two patients enrolled in Arm A and 14 in Arm B. Arm A included 12 GBMs (55 %), 13 patients with one prior regimen (59 %), and median age 54 years (range 28-75). Arm B included 10 GBMs (71 %), one patient with one prior regimen (7 %), and median age 52 years (range 32-70). Median KPS overall was 90 (range 60-100). There were no responses. In Arm A (GBM only), PFS6 was 0 %, median PFS 28 days (95 % CI 27-83), and median OS 6.9 months (3.7-8.1). In Arm B (GBM only), PFS3 was 0 %, median PFS 28 days (22-28), and median OS 2.6 months (1.0-6.9). Among AG patients in each arm, PFS6 was 0 %. Treatment was well tolerated. In conclusion, nintedanib is not active against recurrent high-grade glioma, regardless of prior bevacizumab therapy.

Retrospective study of carmustine or lomustine with bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma patients who have failed prior bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no known effective treatments for recurrent glioblastoma once patients have progressed on a bevacizumab-containing regimen. We examined the efficacy of adding nitrosoureas to bevacizumab in patients who progressed while on an initial bevacizumab-containing regimen. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified adult patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma (WHO grade IV) who were treated with lomustine or carmustine in combination with bevacizumab as a second or third regimen after failing an alternative initial bevacizumab-containing regimen. Response rate (RR), 6-month progression free survival (PFS6), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for each treatment. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were identified (28 males) with a median age of 49 years (range, 24-78 y). Of 42 patients, 28 received lomustine (n = 22) or carmustine (n = 6) with bevacizumab as their second bevacizumab-containing regimen, and 14 received lomustine (n = 11) or carmustine (n = 3) as their third bevacizumab-containing regimen. While the median PFS for the initial bevacizumab-containing regimen was 16.3 weeks, the median PFS for the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen was 6.3 weeks. Patients had an RR of 44% and a PFS6 rate of 26% during the initial bevacizumab regimen and an RR of 0% and a PFS6 rate of 3% during the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen. There was increased grade 3-4 toxicity (45% vs 19%, P = .010) during the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen relative to the initial bevacizumab regimen. Median overall survival was 18.7 weeks from initiation of the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen. CONCLUSION: The addition of lomustine or carmustine to bevacizumab after a patient has already progressed on a bevacizumab-containing regimen does not appear to provide benefit for most patients and is associated with additional toxicity with the doses used in this cohort.