Figures
Abstract
Background
Currently, the standard treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is maximal safe surgical resection followed by radiation therapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. However, disease recurs in almost all patients, and the optimal salvage treatment for recurrent GBM remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials to assess the efficacy and toxicities of angiogenesis inhibitors alone as salvage treatment in these patients.
Methods
Trials published between 1994 and 2015 were identified by an electronic search of public databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library). Demographic data, treatment regimens, objective response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), 6-months PFS rate, 1-year OS and grade 3/4 toxicities were extracted. We also compared the main outcomes of interest between bevacizumab and other angiogenesis inhibitors. All analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software (Version 2.0).
Results
A total of 842 patients were included for analysis: 343 patients were treated with bevacizumab, 386 with other angiogenesis inhibitors and 81 with thalidomide. The pooled ORR, 6-months PFS, and 1-year OS for recurrent GBM patients receiving angiogenesis inhibitors was 20.1%, 19.5% and 29.3%, respectively. The use of single agent bevacizumab in recurrent GBM significantly improved ORR and 6-months PFS when compared to other angiogenesis inhibitors [relative risk (RR) 2.93, 95% CI 1.38–6.21; p = 0.025; and RR 2.36 95% CI 1.46–3.82; p<0.001, respectively], while no significant difference in 1-year OS was found between the two groups (p = 0.07). when compared to thalidomide, bevacizumab treatment in recurrent GBM significantly improved ORR (RR 6.8, 95%CI: 2.64–17.6, p<0.001), but not for 6-months PFS (p = 0.07) and 1-year OS (p = 0.31). As for grade 3/4 toxicities, the common toxicity was hypertension with pooled incidence of 12.1%, while high-grade thromboembolic events (2.2%), hemorrhage (5.1%) and GI perforation (2.8%) associated with angiogenesis inhibitors were relatively low.
Citation: Wang Y, Xing D, Zhao M, Wang J, Yang Y (2016) The Role of a Single Angiogenesis Inhibitor in the Treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0152170. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152170
Editor: Russell O. Pieper, University of California-San Francisco, UNITED STATES
Received: January 21, 2016; Accepted: March 9, 2016; Published: March 23, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults, with an average incidence rate of more than 3/100,000 individuals each year [1, 2]. The current standard of care is maximal safe surgical resection followed by adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy and subsequent consolidation chemotherapy, generally with temozolomide [3, 4]. Despite this multimodality treatment approach, nearly all patients experience disease progression. And the prognosis of recurrent GBM remains dismal, with a median survival of only 14 to 16 months, with 5-year overall survival rate less than 10% [5–7]. For patients with recurrent GBM, salvage chemotherapeutic or biological agents are the most common approach for second-line treatment as most of these patients will not be candidates for new surgery or re-irradiation.
Previous research has found that GBM is a highly vascularized tumor in which micro-vascular proliferation is typically observed [8–10], and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been identified as a prominent mediator of tumor angiogenesis [11, 12]. Thus, angiogenesis inhibitors targeting the VEGF signal pathway obtain a focus of significant scientific interest. Bevacizumab, a humanized antibody to VEGF, received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in May 2009 for use as a single agent in patients with GBM who have progressive disease following front-line therapy consisting of surgical resection, radiotherapy, and temozolomide[4, 13, 14]. In an attempt to improve treatment outcomes, several novel angiogenesis inhibitors have been investigated in prospective clinical trials. However, to our best knowledge, no systematic review focusing on the efficacy and toxicities associated with angiogenesis inhibitors alone in recurrent GBM has been performed, and whether bevacizumab is more efficient than other angiogenesis inhibitors and thalidomide remains unknown. Therefore, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data to compared treatment outcomes with single agent bevacizumab versus other angiogenesis inhibitors and thalidomide for recurrent GBM patients.
Method and Materials
Search strategy and selection of trials
We Performed this meta-analysis adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements[15] (S1 table). To identify studies for inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis, we did a broad search of four databases, including Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from the date of inception of every database to July 2015. The complete search strategy employed has been provided (S1 Text). No language restrictions were applied.
To be eligible for inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis, study populations (referred to hereafter as cohorts) had to meet all the following criteria: 1) patients with recurrent glioblastoma refractory to previous treatments; 2) treatment with angiogenesis inhibitors alone; 3) reported outcomes of interest (ie, objective response rate, 6-months PFS and 1-year OS; and 4) from an original prospective study (ie, randomized controlled trial and non-randomized clinical trial).
Data extraction
Two investigators screened the titles and abstracts of potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full text of relevant studies for further review by the same two reviewers. A third senior investigator resolved any discrepancies between reviewers. The same pair of reviewers extracted study details independently, using a standardized pilot-tested form. A third investigator reviewed all data entries. We extracted the following data: author, study design, study period, median age, interventions (angiogenesis inhibitors regimen and dose), sample size and outcomes of interest. We defined outcomes of interest as objective response rate (ORR), 6-months progression-free survival (PFS), and 1-year overall survival (OS). To assess quality, since we included non-comparative (uncontrolled) studies in our systematic review and meta-analysis, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale[16]. We selected items that focused on representativeness of study patients, demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study, adequate assessment of outcome, sufficient length of follow-up to allow outcomes to arise, and adequacy of follow-up.
Statistical analysis
We prespecified the analysis plan in the protocol. We analyzed all patients who started angiogenesis inhibitors alone, regardless of their adherence to treatment. We calculated event rates of outcome (the proportion of patients who developed outcomes of interest) from the included cohorts. We pooled log-transformed event rates with DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models and assessed heterogeneity using X2-based Q statistic test[17]. We used the test of interaction proposed by Altman and Bland[18] to compare log-transformed rates of outcomes between bevacizumab and other angiogenesis inhibitors. A statistical test with a p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. To measure overall heterogeneity across the included cohorts, we calculated the I2 statistic, with I2 greater than 50% indicating high heterogeneity. We did all statistical analyses with comprehensive meta-analysis software version 2.0(Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA).
Results
Search results
A total of 394 studies were identified from the database search, of which 37 reports were retrieved for full-text evaluation. 19 cohorts from 19 trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review [4, 19–36] (Fig 1). We did not find randomized controlled trials or controlled studies that directly compared single agent bevacizumab with other angiogenesis inhibitors in recurrent GBM patients. Table 1 showed the characteristics of the included studies. Overall, 842 recurrent GBM patients were included, with a median age of 54 years. The median PFS in the bevacizumab group was 3 months (95% CI, 1.89–3.95 months), and in the other angiogenesis inhibitors group was 2.45 months (95% CI, 1.32–3.76 months). The median OS was also higher in single agent bevacizumab than other angiogenesis inhibitors cohorts. The median OS in the bevacizumab group was 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.85–11.25 months), and in the other angiogenesis inhibitors group was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.25–8.38 months).
Methodological quality of the included studies was fair; most studies provided adequate outcome ascertainment, enrolled a representative sample of patients, and had an acceptable length of follow-up (Fig 2). However, comparative evidence was at high risk of bias because we compared data across studies not within them, and selection bias was likely to be present.
Pooled incidence of primary outcomes
A total of 817 patients were included for ORR analysis. The pooled event rate of ORR for recurrent GBM patients receiving angiogenesis inhibitors was 20.1% (95%CI: 14.1–27.9%, Fig 3) using a random effect model (I2 = 78.1%). A total of 803 patients form eighteen trials reported 6-months PFS rate. The pooled 6-months PFS for angiogenesis inhibitors was 19.5% (95%CI: 14.4–25.9%, Fig 4) using a random effect model (I2 = 71.8%). Eleven trials with a total of 559 patients were included for OS analysis yielding a pooled 1-year OS of 29.3% (95%CI: 25.7–33.3%, Fig 5) using a fixed effect model (I2 = 0%).
Efficacy comparison between bevacizumab and other angiogenesis inhibitors.
The pooled event rate of ORR and 6-months PFS for recurrent GBM patients receiving single agent bevacizumab was significantly higher than that for other angiogenesis inhibitors (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.38–6.21; p = 0.025; and RR 2.36 95% CI 1.46–3.82; p<0.001, Table 2), while there was no significantly difference in 1-year OS between the two groups (RR 0.60, 95%CI: 0.62–1.08; p = 0.07, Table 2).
Efficacy comparison between bevacizumab and thalidomide.
The pooled event rate of ORR for recurrent GBM patients receiving single agent bevacizumab was significantly higher than that for thalidomide (RR 6.8, 95% CI 2.64–17.6; p<0.001, Table 3), and there was a tendency to improve 6-months PFS (RR 1.68, 95%CI: 0.84–3.34, p = 0.07), while there was no significant difference in 1-year OS between the two groups (RR 0.89, 95%CI: 0.59–1.37; p = 0.31, Table 3).
Toxicity
Table 4 showed the overall occurrence of high-grade (≥grade 3) anti-VEGF toxicities with angiogenesis inhibitors. The common high-grade toxicities associated with angiogenesis inhibitors were hypertension with pooled incidence of 12.1% (95%CI: 9.6–15.1%), while high-grade thromboembolic events (2.2%, 95%CI: 1.2–3.9%), hemorrhage (5.1%, 95%CI: 3.6–7.2%) and GI perforation (2.8%, 95%CI: 1.2–6.4%) associated with angiogenesis inhibitors were relatively low in recurrent GBM patients (table 4).
Publication bias
The Begg’s and Egger’s test did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry for 1-year OS (Begg’s test: p = 0.58 and Egger’s test: p = 0.73, respectively), while an obvious publication was observed for ORR (Begg’s test: p = 0.034 and Egger’s test: p = 0.003, respectively) and 6-month PFS (Begg’s test: p = 0.002 and Egger’s test: p = 0.001, respectively).
Discussion
GBM is the most common and aggressive primary brain tumor. After tumor progression on first-line therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation temozolomide, there are few effective treatment options for these patients with. Due to the aggressive and rapid fatal disease course of recurrent GBM, the development of novel drugs for these patients is badly needed. In recent years, angiogenesis inhibitors targeted VEGF signal pathways have become a focus for the management of recurrent GBM, and bevacizumab has been approved for use as single agent in these patients[37, 38]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is lack of meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and toxicities associated with angiogenesis inhibitors in recurrent GBM.
A total 842 recurrent GBM patients from 19 trials were included for analysis: 343 patients were treated with bevacizumab alone and 467 with other angiogenesis inhibitors. Based on our pooled results, we find that the use of single agent bevacizumab in recurrent GBM significantly improves ORR and 6-months PFS when compared to other angiogenesis inhibitors and thalidomide, while no significant difference in 1-year OS was found between the two groups. According to our results, single agent bevacizumab seems superior to other angiogenesis inhibitors and thalidomide as salvage treatment for these patients in terms of ORR and 6-months PFS, but the overall survival, which does reflect a direct clinical benefit for the patient (as opposed to ORR), of bevacizumab is not superior to other angiogenesis inhibitors and thalidomide. As a result clinicians should be cautious when interpreting these results due to the limitations of our studies, and randomized controlled trials directly comparing the efficacy between bevacizumab and other angiogenesis inhibitors in this setting are needed. Recently, several trials have been conducted to investigate whether bevacizumab alone should be preferred over combination therapy, but the results are controversial. In a phase II trial conducted by Taal W. et al [39], the authors showed that the combination of bevacizumab with lomustine was more effective than bevacizumab. Unfortunately, another recently published results of the EORTC 26101 study[40], a phase III study evaluating the efficacy of bevacizumab combined with lomustine in recurrent GBM showed no evidence of improved overall survival. Therefore, further studies are still needed to investigate whether bevacizumab-based combination therapy is superior to bevacizumab in recurrent GBM.
Safety of systematic treatments is of particular importance in palliative setting in recurrent GBM patients, given the potential negative impact on benefit ratio and quality of life. Finding of our study indicates that the common grade 3/4 toxicities associated with angiogenesis inhibitors were hypertension with pooled incidence of 12.1%, while high-grade thromboembolic events, hemorrhage and GI perforation associated with AAs were relatively low.
Several limitations need to be mentioned in this analysis. First, using formal meta-analytic methods to pool the observational studies remains controversial, because the trial designs and populations of these studies are diverse, which could influence the pooled estimates. However, there is no published data regarding comparison of single agent bevacizumab versus other angiogenesis inhibitors and thalidomide, and a meta-analysis of observational studies could comprehensively assess the overall efficacy and toxicities of angiogenesis inhibitors in recurrent GBM[41]. Second, the inclusion criteria for clinical trials likely favor young, fit, and responder patients, a highly selected group of subjects with good prognostic indicators, all of these might cause potential selection bias. Thirdly, we use the DerSimonian and Laird model to pool the overall outcomes due to significant heterogeneity among included studies. However, this model has its limitations, especially when the number of studies is smaller than 20. Therefore, the variance between studies might be negatively biased and the method also does not take uncertainty into account. Finally, this meta-analysis only considers published literature, and lack of individual patient data prevents us from adjusting the treatment effect according to previous treatment and patient variables.
Conclusions
In comparison with other angiogenesis inhibitors and thalidomide, the use of single agent bevacizumab as salvage treatment for recurrent GBM patients improve ORR and 6-months PFS, but not for 1-year OS.
Supporting Information
S1 Text. Search strategy used to identify trials;
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152170.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to the authors of the primary studies, for without their contributions, this work would have been impossible.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: YW YY. Performed the experiments: DX MZ. Analyzed the data: JW YY. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: YW YY. Wrote the paper: YY.
References
- 1. Thakkar JP, Dolecek TA, Horbinski C, Ostrom QT, Lightner DD, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, et al. Epidemiologic and molecular prognostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(10):1985–96. pmid:25053711; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4185005.
- 2. Tsang DS, Khan L, Perry JR, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Keith JL, et al. Survival outcomes in elderly patients with glioblastoma. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015;27(3):176–83. pmid:25549930.
- 3. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE 2nd, Dowell JM, Reardon DA, Quinn JA, et al. Phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(4):1253–9. Epub 2007/02/24. pmid:17317837.
- 4. Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, Mikkelsen T, Schiff D, Abrey LE, et al. Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4733–40. pmid:19720927.
- 5. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):987–96. pmid:15758009.
- 6. Gilbert MR, Wang M, Aldape KD, Stupp R, Hegi ME, Jaeckle KA, et al. Dose-dense temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a randomized phase III clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):4085–91. pmid:24101040; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3816958.
- 7. Dolecek TA, Propp JM, Stroup NE, Kruchko C. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2005–2009. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14 Suppl 5:v1–49. pmid:23095881; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3480240.
- 8. Field KM, Jordan JT, Wen PY, Rosenthal MA, Reardon DA. Bevacizumab and glioblastoma: scientific review, newly reported updates, and ongoing controversies. Cancer. 2015;121(7):997–1007. pmid:25263092.
- 9. Plate KH, Breier G, Weich HA, Risau W. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a potential tumour angiogenesis factor in human gliomas in vivo. Nature. 1992;359(6398):845–8. pmid:1279432.
- 10. Lamszus K, Ulbricht U, Matschke J, Brockmann MA, Fillbrandt R, Westphal M. Levels of soluble vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor 1 in astrocytic tumors and its relation to malignancy, vascularity, and VEGF-A. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9(4):1399–405. pmid:12684411.
- 11. Kim KJ, Li B, Winer J, Armanini M, Gillett N, Phillips HS, et al. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor-induced angiogenesis suppresses tumour growth in vivo. Nature. 1993;362(6423):841–4. pmid:7683111.
- 12. Jensen RL, Ragel BT, Whang K, Gillespie D. Inhibition of hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha (HIF-1alpha) decreases vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) secretion and tumor growth in malignant gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2006;78(3):233–47. pmid:16612574.
- 13. Zhang G, Huang S, Wang Z. A meta-analysis of bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in the treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Journal of clinical neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2012;19(12):1636–40. pmid:23047061.
- 14. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE 2nd, Marcello J, Reardon DA, Quinn JA, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(30):4722–9. pmid:17947719.
- 15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. pmid:19621072; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2707599.
- 16. Ozawa Y, Inui N, Naitoh T, Yasuda K, Nagayama M, Shirai T, et al. Phase II study of combination chemotherapy with S-1 and weekly cisplatin in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2009;63(1):68–71. Epub 2008/06/03. pmid:18513824.
- 17. Ichinose Y, Yoshimori K, Sakai H, Nakai Y, Sugiura T, Kawahara M, et al. S-1 plus cisplatin combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a multi-institutional phase II trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(23):7860–4. Epub 2004/12/09. pmid:15585618.
- 18. Kawahara M, Furuse K, Segawa Y, Yoshimori K, Matsui K, Kudoh S, et al. Phase II study of S-1, a novel oral fluorouracil, in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2001;85(7):939–43. Epub 2001/10/11. pmid:11592762; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2375091.
- 19. Hassler MR, Ackerl M, Flechl B, Sax C, Wohrer A, Widhalm G, et al. Sorafenib for patients with pretreated recurrent or progressive high-grade glioma: a retrospective, single-institution study. Anticancer Drugs. 2014;25(6):723–8. pmid:24441743.
- 20. Raizer JJ, Grimm S, Chamberlain MC, Nicholas MK, Chandler JP, Muro K, et al. A phase 2 trial of single-agent bevacizumab given in an every-3-week schedule for patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. Cancer. 2010;116(22):5297–305. Epub 2010/07/29. pmid:20665891.
- 21. Batchelor TT, Duda DG, di Tomaso E, Ancukiewicz M, Plotkin SR, Gerstner E, et al. Phase II study of cediranib, an oral pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(17):2817–23. pmid:20458050; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2903316.
- 22. Batchelor TT, Mulholland P, Neyns B, Nabors LB, Campone M, Wick A, et al. Phase III randomized trial comparing the efficacy of cediranib as monotherapy, and in combination with lomustine, versus lomustine alone in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(26):3212–8. pmid:23940216; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4021043.
- 23. de Groot JF, Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Gilbert MR, Cloughesy TF, Aldape K, et al. Phase II study of aflibercept in recurrent malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(19):2689–95. pmid:21606416; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3139373.
- 24. Fine HA, Figg WD, Jaeckle K, Wen PY, Kyritsis AP, Loeffler JS, et al. Phase II trial of the antiangiogenic agent thalidomide in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(4):708–15. pmid:10673511.
- 25. Kreisl TN, Kim L, Moore K, Duic P, Royce C, Stroud I, et al. Phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab plus irinotecan at tumor progression in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(5):740–5. pmid:19114704; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2645088.
- 26. Chamberlain MC, Johnston SK. Salvage therapy with single agent bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2010;96(2):259–69. pmid:19593660.
- 27. Marx GM, Pavlakis N, McCowatt S, Boyle FM, Levi JA, Bell DR, et al. Phase II study of thalidomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurooncol. 2001;54(1):31–8. pmid:11763420.
- 28. Muhic A, Poulsen HS, Sorensen M, Grunnet K, Lassen U. Phase II open-label study of nintedanib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurooncol. 2013;111(2):205–12. pmid:23184145.
- 29. Norden AD, Schiff D, Ahluwalia MS, Lesser GJ, Nayak L, Lee EQ, et al. Phase II trial of triple tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor nintedanib in recurrent high-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2015;121(2):297–302. pmid:25338318.
- 30. Pan E, Yu D, Yue B, Potthast L, Chowdhary S, Smith P, et al. A prospective phase II single-institution trial of sunitinib for recurrent malignant glioma. J Neurooncol. 2012;110(1):111–8. pmid:22832897.
- 31. Nagane M, Nishikawa R, Narita Y, Kobayashi H, Takano S, Shinoura N, et al. Phase II study of single-agent bevacizumab in Japanese patients with recurrent malignant glioma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42(10):887–95. pmid:22844129; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3448378.
- 32. Taal W, Oosterkamp HM, Walenkamp AM, Dubbink HJ, Beerepoot LV, Hanse MC, et al. Single-agent bevacizumab or lomustine versus a combination of bevacizumab plus lomustine in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (BELOB trial): a randomised controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(9):943–53. pmid:25035291.
- 33. Hutterer M, Nowosielski M, Haybaeck J, Embacher S, Stockhammer F, Gotwald T, et al. A single-arm phase II Austrian/German multicenter trial on continuous daily sunitinib in primary glioblastoma at first recurrence (SURGE 01–07). Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(1):92–102. pmid:24311637; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3870838.
- 34. Iwamoto FM, Lamborn KR, Robins HI, Mehta MP, Chang SM, Butowski NA, et al. Phase II trial of pazopanib (GW786034), an oral multi-targeted angiogenesis inhibitor, for adults with recurrent glioblastoma (North American Brain Tumor Consortium Study 06–02). Neuro Oncol. 2010;12(8):855–61. pmid:20200024; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2940686.
- 35. Kreisl TN, McNeill KA, Sul J, Iwamoto FM, Shih J, Fine HA. A phase I/II trial of vandetanib for patients with recurrent malignant glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(12):1519–26. pmid:23099652; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3499018.
- 36. Kreisl TN, Zhang W, Odia Y, Shih JH, Butman JA, Hammoud D, et al. A phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab in patients with recurrent anaplastic glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(10):1143–50. pmid:21865400; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3177658.
- 37. Batchelor TT, Reardon DA, de Groot JF, Wick W, Weller M. Antiangiogenic therapy for glioblastoma: current status and future prospects. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(22):5612–9. pmid:25398844; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4234180.
- 38. Ghiaseddin A, Peters KB. Use of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma. CNS oncology. 2015;4(3):157–69. pmid:25906439.
- 39. Moehler M, Maderer A, Schimanski C, Kanzler S, Denzer U, Kolligs FT, et al. Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: a double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(18):3125–35. Epub 2014/12/03. pmid:25446376.
- 40. Malka D, Cervera P, Foulon S, Trarbach T, de la Fouchardiere C, Boucher E, et al. Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(8):819–28. Epub 2014/05/24. pmid:24852116.
- 41. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2000;283(15):2008–12. pmid:10789670.