Cargando…

Early post-bevacizumab change in rCBV from DSC-MRI identifies pseudoresponse in recurrent glioblastoma: Results from ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625

BACKGROUND: Progressive enhancement predicted poor survival in ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625, a multi-center trial of bevacizumab with irinotecan or temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma, but pseudoresponse likely limited enhancement-based survival prognostication in T1 non-progressors. We aimed to determin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boxerman, Jerrold L., Snyder, Bradley S., Barboriak, Daniel P., Schmainda, Kathleen M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9909012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36776298
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1061502
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Progressive enhancement predicted poor survival in ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625, a multi-center trial of bevacizumab with irinotecan or temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma, but pseudoresponse likely limited enhancement-based survival prognostication in T1 non-progressors. We aimed to determine whether early change in cerebral blood volume from baseline (ΔCBV) could further stratify the T1 non-progressors according to overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival. METHODS: 37/123 enrolled patients had DSC-MRI, including 13, 15, and 8 patients without 2D-T1 progression at 2, 8, and 16 weeks post-treatment initiation, respectively. Mean CBV normalized to white matter (nRCBV) and mean standardized CBV (sRCBV) were extracted from enhancing tumor. ROC curves were derived for ΔCBV using six-month PFS and one-year OS as reference standards. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and log-rank test compared PFS and OS for both ΔCBV (increase vs. decrease) and T1 response status (stable vs. decreasing enhancement). RESULTS: PFS and OS were significantly worse for increasing CBV at 2 weeks (p=0.003 and p=0.002 for nRCBV, and p=0.03 and p=0.03 for sRCBV, respectively), but not for 2D-T1 patients with stable vs. decreasing enhancement (p=0.44 and p=0.86, respectively). ΔCBV at week 2 was also a good prognostic marker for OS-1 and PFS-6 using ROC analysis. By contrast, 2D-T1 response status at weeks 2, 8, and 16 was not associated with PFS-6. ΔCBV at 16 weeks (p=0.008 for sRCBV) but not 8 weeks (p=0.74 for nRCBV and p=0.56 for sRCBV) was associated with significant difference in median survival, but no difference in survival was observed for 2D-T1 patients with stable vs. decreasing enhancement at 8 weeks (p=0.69) or 16 weeks (p=0.21). At 16 weeks, OS did not differ significantly between 2D-T1 progressors and 2D-T1 non-progressors with increasing CBV (median survival 3.3 months post week 16 scan vs. 9.2 months, respectively; p=0.13), suggesting that 2D-T1 non-progressors with increasing CBV may have a prognosis like that of 2D-T1 progressors. CONCLUSION: After 2 weeks of anti-angiogenic therapy, ΔCBV in 2D-T1 non-progressors significantly prognosticated PFS and OS, whereas 2D-T1 response status did not, identifying a subpopulation that benefits from bevacizumab. Combining 2D-T1 progression and ΔCBV may yield a response assessment paradigm with 3-tiered OS stratification.