Kathryn Maree Field

Aim: Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in glioblastoma can be challenging. For patients with recurrent glioblastoma managed on the CABARET trial, we compared disease status assessed at hospitals and subsequent blinded central expert radiological review.Methods: MRI results and clinical status at specified time points were used for site and central assessment of disease status. Clinical status was determined by the site. Response Assessment in Neuro‐Oncology (RANO) criteria were used for both assessments. Site and central assessments of progression‐free survival (PFS) and response rates were compared. Inter‐rater variability for central review progression dates was assessed.Results: Central review resulted in shorter PFS in 45% of 89 evaluable patients (n = 40). Median PFS was 3.6 (central) versus 3.9 months (site) (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3–1.8, P < 0.001). Responses were documented more frequently by sites (n = 16, 18%) than centrally (n = 11, 12%). Seven of 120 patients continued on trial without site‐determined progression for more than 6 months beyond the central review determination of progression. Of scans reviewed by all three central reviewers, 33% were fully concordant for progression date.Conclusion: While the difference between site and central PFS dates was statistically significant, the 0.3‐month median difference is small. The variability within central review is consistent with previous studies, highlighting the challenges in MRI interpretation in this context. A small proportion of patients benefited from treatment well beyond the centrally determined progression date, reinforcing that clinical status together with radiology results are important determinants of whether a therapy is effective for an individual.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab has been associated with prolonged progression‐free survival for patients with recurrent glioblastoma; however, not all derive a benefit. An early indicator of efficacy or futility may allow early discontinuation for nonresponders. This study prospectively assessed the role of early magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) and its correlation with subsequent routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results and survival.METHODS: Patients were part of a randomized phase 2 clinical trial (CABARET) comparing bevacizumab with bevacizumab plus carboplatin for recurrent glioblastoma. eMRI was conducted after 4 weeks in the trial (after 2 treatments with bevacizumab [10 mg/kg every 2 weeks]). The results were compared with the results of the subsequent 8‐week MRI standard.RESULTS: For 119 of 122 patients, eMRI was available, and 111 had subsequent MRI for comparison. Thirty‐six (30%) had an early radiological response, and 17 (14%) had progressive disease. The concordance between eMRI and 8‐week MRI was moderate (κ = 0.56), with most providing the same result (n = 79 [71%]). There was strong evidence that progression‐free survival and overall survival were predicted by the eMRI response (both P values < .001). The median survival was 8.6 months for an eMRI response, 6.6 months for stable disease, and 3.7 months for progressive disease; the hazard ratio (progressive disease vs stable disease) was 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.9‐6.0). Landmark analyses showed that eMRI progression was a strong predictor of mortality independent of other potential baseline predictors.CONCLUSIONS: In this study, early progression on MRI appears to be a robust marker of a poor prognosis for patients on bevacizumab. Cancer 2017;123:3576‐82. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

In recurrent glioblastoma, health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a crucial trial endpoint. We examined HRQL outcomes as a secondary endpoint for patients in the CABARET randomized phase 2 trial. 122 patients were randomly allocated to bevacizumab monotherapy or bevacizumab plus carboplatin. We calculated change scores from baseline for each HRQL measure on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), together with time to deterioration in HRQL, and the proportion of participants with clinically meaningful improvements in specific disease-related symptoms. At baseline, 117 of 122 randomized patients (96%) attempted questionnaires. Questionnaire participation rates were >90% for patients continuing on treatment, however at the end-of-treatment visit only 72 (64% of eligible participants) returned a form. There were no differences between arms in change scores over the treatment period. Time to ≥10 point deterioration in scores from baseline was also similar between arms. HRQL deterioration occurred largely before progression for the domains tested, but scores in HRQL domains specifically relevant to symptoms of recurrent glioblastoma also improved for about 50% of patients with symptoms at baseline. Neither detrimental nor beneficial effects on HRQL were seen with carboplatin added to bevacizumab, with a proportion of patients on both arms experiencing symptomatic benefit. Given the reduced questionnaire completion at end of treatment, time to HRQL deterioration is a feasible and robust clinical trial endpoint in this patient population. Clinical trials registration number: ACTRN12610000915055.

The optimal use of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM), including the choice of monotherapy or combination therapy, remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare combination therapy with bevacizumab monotherapy. This was a 2-part randomized phase 2 study. Eligibility criteria included recurrent GBM after radiotherapy and temozolomide, no other chemotherapy for GBM, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. The primary objective (Part 1) was to determine the effect of bevacizumab plus carboplatin versus bevacizumab monotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) using modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Bevacizumab was given every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg; and carboplatin every 4 weeks, (AUC 5). On progression, patients able to continue were randomized to continue or cease bevacizumab (Part 2). Secondary endpoints included objective radiological response rate (ORR), quality of life, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). One hundred twenty-two patients (median age, 55y) were enrolled to Part 1 from 18 Australian sites. Median follow-up was 32 months, and median on-treatment time was 3.3 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months for each arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.64–1.33, P = .66). ORR was 14% (combination) versus 6% (monotherapy) (P = .18). Median OS was 6.9 (combination) versus 7.5 months (monotherapy) (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82–1.69, P = .38). The incidence of bevacizumab-related adverse events was similar to prior literature, with no new toxicity signals. Toxicities were higher in the combination arm. Part 2 data (n = 48) will be reported separately. Adding carboplatin resulted in more toxicity without additional clinical benefit. Clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab were inferior to those in previously reported studies. ACTRN12610000915055.

Background: Prior studies have suggested improved outcomes for cancer patients managed in private centres, despite universal healthcare within Australia.Aims: To compare patient, disease, treatment and survival data for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) managed in private versus public centres.Methods: Analysis of prospectively collected registry data for consecutive patients with mCRC managed at 16 participating centres from July 2009.Results: Data for 1065 patients were examined. Age, gender and Charlson comorbidity score were similar for public and private patients. Private patients were more commonly Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score 0–1 (85% vs 78%, P = 0.008), in the highest Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage quintile (57% vs 18%, P < 0.001) or had a single metastatic site (62% vs 54%, P = 0.009). Patients treated in private were more likely to receive chemotherapy (84% vs 70%, P < 0.001), bevacizumab (59% vs 50%, P = 0.008), be treated with curative intent (37% vs 26%, P < 0.001) and undergo metastasectomy (30% vs 22%, P = 0.001). These management differences remained statistically significant after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Management in the private setting was associated with superior overall survival (median 27.9 vs 20 months, hazard ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.86, P = 0.001), significant in multivariate analysis adjusting for all baseline covariates.Conclusions: Significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted for private versus public patients. However, these do not explain the higher rates of treatment delivery in the private setting, which likely contributed towards the observed survival difference. Further studies are required to determine if the increased likelihood of intervention in the private setting is driven by patient, clinician and/or institutional factors.

Anti‐angiogenic therapy for glioblastoma has been in the spotlight for several years, as researchers and clinicians strive to find agents with meaningful efficacy against glioblastoma. Bevacizumab in particular, in the second half of the last decade, became the most significant breakthrough in anti‐glioblastoma therapy since temozolomide. Optimism for bevacizumab has been somewhat challenged given recent clinical trials that have raised questions regarding its clinical effectiveness, the optimal timing of its use and the validity of endpoints, among other issues. In addition, uncertainty has recently arisen regarding the effects of bevacizumab on quality of life and neurocognitive function, two key clinical endpoints of unquestionable significance among glioblastoma patients. In this review, we highlight these controversies and other recent work related to bevacizumab for glioblastoma. Cancer 2014. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Background: The changing treatment landscape for metastatic colorectal cancer creates multiple potential treatment strategies. An Australian‐centric database capturing comprehensive information across a range of treatment locations would create a valuable resource enabling multiple important research questions to be addressed.Aims: To establish a collection of a consensus dataset capturing treatment and outcomes at multiple public and private hospitals across Australia.Methods: An electronic database was developed by a panel of clinicians, to capture an agreed dataset for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer. Of particular interest were clinician decision‐making, the impact of comorbidities and the frequency of major adverse events.Results: Since July 2009, data collection has been established at six public and eight private hospitals across three Australian states and territories. Successful linkage and analysis, with support from BioGrid Australia, of selected data on the initial 864 patients demonstrates that data can be captured from diverse sites, including public and private practice, that multiple factors impact on treatment delivered and outcomes achieved and that comprehensive data on rare but important adverse events can be captured. As a clinical research tool, the project has been highly successful, generating multiple presentations at national and international conferences related to a diverse range of research questions.Conclusions: Multistate, project‐specific data collection involving large numbers of patients is achievable. Providing invaluable insight into the routine clinical management of metastatic colorectal cancer in the era of targeted therapies, this also creates a significant resource for research, including many questions not being addressed by clinical trials.