Michael Niessen

Carmustine (BCNU) plus Teniposide (VM26) in Recurrent Malignant Glioma

Background: After the failure of radiotherapy and temozolomide, there is no established standard therapy for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Based on the promising data of a previous trial (NOA-01) for primary GBM and some retrospective case series for GBM recurrence, the combination of nimustine and teniposide (VM26) was commonly used in this setting. When nimustine was no longer available in Europe, we switched to intrvaveneous carmustine (BCNU). Data on the toxicity and efficacy of BCNU and VM26 in recurrent GBM are lacking. Methods: In our neurooncological center, all patients with recurrent GBM or with progressed glioma and a typical MRI lesion suggesting GBM treated with BCNU (130-150 mg/m2, day 1/42) and VM26 (45-60 mg/m2, days 1-3/42) were analyzed retrospectively for progression-free survival, overall survival and toxicity. Results: Fifteen patients (median age 52 years) were identified. Median progression-free survival was 2 months and median overall survival was 4 months. Two patients (14%) developed grade 3/4 hematotoxicity. Nonhematological toxicity ≥grade 3 was not observed. Conclusion: Our data do not support the application of BCNU/VM26 in patients with late stages of recurrent GBM.

Tumor growth patterns of MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma in the randomized GLARIUS trial

BackgroundWe evaluated patterns of tumor growth in patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma who were assigned to undergo radiotherapy in conjunction with bevacizumab/irinotecan (BEV/IRI) or standard temozolomide (TMZ) within the randomized phase II GLARIUS trial.MethodsIn 142 patients (94 BEV/IRI, 48 TMZ), we reviewed magnetic resonance imaging scans at baseline and first tumor recurrence. Based on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images, we assessed tumor growth patterns and tumor invasiveness. Tumor growth patterns were classified as either multifocal or local at baseline and recurrence; at first recurrence, we additionally assessed whether distant lesions appeared. Invasiveness was determined as either diffuse or non-diffuse. Associations with treatment arms were calculated using Fisher’s exact test.ResultsAt baseline, 115 of 142 evaluable patients (81%) had a locally confined tumor. Between treatment arms, there was no significant difference in the fraction of tumors that changed from an initially local tumor growth pattern to a multifocal pattern (12 and 13%, p = 0.55). Distant lesions appeared in 17% (BEV/IRI) and 13% (TMZ) of patients (p = 0.69). 15% of patients in the BEV/IRI arm and 8% in the TMZ arm developed a diffuse growth pattern from an initially non-diffuse pattern (p = 0.42).ConclusionsThe tumor growth and invasiveness patterns do not differ between BEV/IRI and TMZ-treated MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma patients in the GLARIUS trial. BEV/IRI was not associated with an increased rate of multifocal, distant, or highly invasive tumors at the time of recurrence.