An Evaluation of the Tolerability and Feasibility of Combining 5-Amino-Levulinic Acid (5-ALA) with BCNU Wafers in the Surgical Management of Primary Glioblastoma.

Background Glioblastoma (GBM) is the commonest primary malignant brain tumour in adults and effective treatment options are limited. Combining local chemotherapy with enhanced surgical resection using 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) could improve outcomes. Here we assess the safety and feasibility of combining BCNU wafers with 5-ALA-guided surgery. Methods We conducted a multicentre feasibility study of 5-ALA with BCNU wafers followed by standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) in patients with suspected GBM. Patients judged suitable for radical resection were administered 5-ALA pre-operatively and BCNU wafers at the end resection. Post-operative treatment continued as per routine clinical practice. The primary objective was to establish if combining 5-ALA and BCNU wafers is safe without compromising patients from receiving standard chemoRT. Results Seventy-two patients were recruited, sixty-four (88.9%) received BCNU wafer implants, and fifty-nine (81.9%) patients remained eligible following formal histological diagnosis. Seven (11.9%) eligible patients suffered surgical complications but only two (3.4%) were not able to begin chemoRT, four (6.8%) additional patients did not begin chemoRT within 6 weeks of surgery due to surgical complications. Eleven (18.6%) patients did not begin chemoRT for other reasons (other toxicity (n = 3), death (n = 3), lost to follow-up/withdrew (n = 3), clinical decision (n = 1), poor performance status (n = 1)). Median progression-free survival was 8.7 months (95% CI: 6.4-9.8) and median overall survival was 14.7 months (95% CI: 11.7-16.8). Conclusions Combining BCNU wafers with 5-ALA-guided surgery in newly diagnosed GBM patients is both feasible and tolerable in terms of surgical morbidity and overall toxicity. Any potential therapeutic benefit for the sequential use of 5-ALA and BCNU with chemoRT requires further investigation with improved local delivery technologies.

Multi-Center Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Cediranib plus Gefitinib with Cediranib plus Placebo in Subjects with Recurrent/Progressive Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Cediranib, an oral pan-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, failed to show benefit over lomustine in relapsed glioblastoma. One resistance mechanism for cediranib is up-regulation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). This study aimed to determine if dual therapy with cediranib and the oral EGFR inhibitor gefitinib improved outcome in recurrent glioblastoma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a multi-center randomized, two-armed, double-blinded phase II study comparing cediranib plus gefitinib versus cediranib plus placebo in subjects with first relapse/first progression of glioblastoma following surgery and chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome measure was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcome measures included overall survival (OS) and radiologic response rate. Recruitment was terminated early following suspension of the cediranib program. 38 subjects (112 planned) were enrolled with 19 subjects in each treatment arm. Median PFS with cediranib plus gefitinib was 3.6 months compared to 2.8 months for cediranib plus placebo (HR; 0.72, 90% CI; 0.41 to 1.26). Median OS was 7.2 months with cediranib plus gefitinib and 5.5 months with cediranib plus placebo (HR; 0.68, 90% CI; 0.39 to 1.19). Eight subjects (42%) had a partial response in the cediranib plus gefitinib arm versus five patients (26%) in the cediranib plus placebo arm. CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib and gefitinib in combination is tolerated in patients with glioblastoma. Incomplete recruitment led to the study being underpowered. However, a trend towards improved survival and response rates with the addition of gefitinib to cediranib was observed. Further studies of the combination incorporating EGFR and VEGF inhibition are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01310855.

Mouse schwann cells need both NRG1 and cyclic AMP to myelinate.

Genetically modified mice have been a major source of information about the molecular control of Schwann-cell myelin formation, and the role of ß-neuregulin 1 (NRG1) in this process in vivo. In vitro, on the other hand, Schwann cells from rats have been used in most analyses of the signaling pathways involved in myelination. To correlate more effectively in vivo and in vitro data, we used purified cultures of mouse Schwann cells in addition to rat Schwann cells to examine two important myelin-related signals, cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), and NRG1 and to determine whether they interact to control myelin differentiation. We find that in mouse Schwann cells, neither cAMP nor NRG1, when used separately, induced markers of myelin differentiation. When combined, however, they induced strong protein expression of the myelin markers, Krox-20 and P(0) . Importantly, the level of cAMP signaling was crucial in switching NRG1 from a proliferative signal to a myelin differentiation signal. Also in cultured rat Schwann cells, NRG1 promoted cAMP-induced Krox-20 and P(0) expression. Finally, we found that cAMP/NRG1-induced Schwann-cell differentiation required the activity of the cAMP response element binding family of transcription factors in both mouse and rat cells. These observations reconcile observations in vivo and on neuron-Schwann-cell cultures with studies on purified Schwann cells. They demonstrate unambiguously the promyelin effects of NRG1 in purified cells, and they show that the cAMP pathway determines whether NRG1 drives proliferation or induces myelin differentiation.