0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      REGOMA-OSS: a large, Italian, multicenter, prospective, observational study evaluating the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In the randomized phase II REGOMA trial, regorafenib showed promising activity in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. We conducted a large, multicenter, prospective, observational study to confirm the REGOMA data in a real-world setting.

          Patients and methods

          The major inclusion criteria were histologically confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2016 classification and relapse after radiotherapy with concurrent/adjuvant temozolomide treatment, good performance status [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS 0-1)] and good liver function. Regorafenib was administered at the standard dose of 160 mg/day for 3 weeks on/1 week off. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was carried out within 14 days before starting regorafenib and every 8-12 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, disease control rate (DCR), safety and health-related quality of life. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were used for response evaluation and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 for assessment of adverse events (AEs).

          Results

          From September 2020 to October 2022, 190 patients with recurrent glioblastoma were enrolled from 30 cancer centers in Italy: their median age was 58.5 years [interquartile range (IQR) 53-67 years], 68% were male and 85 (44.7%) were in optimal clinical condition (ECOG PS 0). The number of patients taking steroids at baseline was 113 (60%); the second surgery was carried out in 39 (20.5%). O 6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) was methylated in 80 patients (50.3%) and 147 (92.4%) of the patients analyzed had isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) wild type. The median follow-up period was 20 months (IQR 15.6-25.5 months). The median OS was 7.9 months ([95% confidence interval (CI) 6.5-9.2 months] and the median PFS was 2.6 months (95% CI 2.3-2.9 months). Radiological response was partial response and stable disease in 13 (7.3%) and 26 (14.6%) patients, respectively, with a DCR of 21.9%. The median number of regorafenib cycles per patient was 3 (IQR 2.0-4.0). Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events were reported in 22.6% of patients. A dose reduction due to AEs was required in 36% of patients. No deaths were considered as treatment-related AEs.

          Conclusions

          This large, real-world observational study showed similar OS with better tolerability of regorafenib in patients with relapsed glioblastoma compared with the REGOMA study.

          Highlights

          • This is the largest prospective study to evaluate the activity and safety of regorafenib in the real-world setting.

          • In this study, the survival was very similar to the REGOMA trial with a better controlled toxicity profile.

          • Molecular predictors of regorafenib efficacy need to be investigated to provide more personalized treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Radiotherapy plus Concomitant and Adjuvant Temozolomide for Glioblastoma

          Glioblastoma, the most common primary brain tumor in adults, is usually rapidly fatal. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is surgical resection to the extent feasible, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. In this trial we compared radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus temozolomide, given concomitantly with and after radiotherapy, in terms of efficacy and safety. Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed glioblastoma were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone (fractionated focal irradiation in daily fractions of 2 Gy given 5 days per week for 6 weeks, for a total of 60 Gy) or radiotherapy plus continuous daily temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day, 7 days per week from the first to the last day of radiotherapy), followed by six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter for 5 days during each 28-day cycle). The primary end point was overall survival. A total of 573 patients from 85 centers underwent randomization. The median age was 56 years, and 84 percent of patients had undergone debulking surgery. At a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 12.1 months with radiotherapy alone. The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the radiotherapy-plus-temozolomide group was 0.63 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.75; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The two-year survival rate was 26.5 percent with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 10.4 percent with radiotherapy alone. Concomitant treatment with radiotherapy plus temozolomide resulted in grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxic effects in 7 percent of patients. The addition of temozolomide to radiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma resulted in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant survival benefit with minimal additional toxicity. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.

            In 1986, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) initiated a research program to develop an integrated, modular approach for evaluating the quality of life of patients participating in international clinical trials. We report here the results of an international field study of the practicality, reliability, and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30, the current core questionnaire. The QLQ-C30 incorporates nine multi-item scales: five functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social); three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea and vomiting); and a global health and quality-of-life scale. Several single-item symptom measures are also included. The questionnaire was administered before treatment and once during treatment to 305 patients with nonresectable lung cancer from centers in 13 countries. Clinical variables assessed included disease stage, weight loss, performance status, and treatment toxicity. The average time required to complete the questionnaire was approximately 11 minutes, and most patients required no assistance. The data supported the hypothesized scale structure of the questionnaire with the exception of role functioning (work and household activities), which was also the only multi-item scale that failed to meet the minimal standards for reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient > or = .70) either before or during treatment. Validity was shown by three findings. First, while all interscale correlations were statistically significant, the correlation was moderate, indicating that the scales were assessing distinct components of the quality-of-life construct. Second, most of the functional and symptom measures discriminated clearly between patients differing in clinical status as defined by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scale, weight loss, and treatment toxicity. Third, there were statistically significant changes, in the expected direction, in physical and role functioning, global quality of life, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting, for patients whose performance status had improved or worsened during treatment. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were highly consistent across the three language-cultural groups studied: patients from English-speaking countries, Northern Europe, and Southern Europe. These results support the EORTC QLQ-C30 as a reliable and valid measure of the quality of life of cancer patients in multicultural clinical research settings. Work is ongoing to examine the performance of the questionnaire among more heterogenous patient samples and in phase II and phase III clinical trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

              There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                Elsevier
                2059-7029
                15 March 2024
                April 2024
                15 March 2024
                : 9
                : 4
                : 102943
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Oncology, Oncology 1, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua
                [2 ]Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiation Oncology Unit, University of Florence, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence
                [3 ]Neuro-Oncology Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome
                [4 ]Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan
                [5 ]Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Humanitas Cancer Center, Milan
                [6 ]Radiation Oncology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia
                [7 ]Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, U.O.C. Radioterapia Oncologica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome
                [8 ]Nervous System Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS Istituto Delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna
                [9 ]Neuro-Oncological Unit, Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan
                [10 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Civil Hospital, Livorno
                [11 ]Medical Oncology Department, Santa Maria Hospital, Terni
                [12 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento
                [13 ]Oncology Unit of National Institute of Gastroenterology ‘S. De Bellis’, Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Bari
                [14 ]Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Oncologia Medica 2, Genoa
                [15 ]Neuroncology Unit, IRCCS ‘C. Mondino Foundation’, University of Pavia, Pavia
                [16 ]Medical Oncology, Sassari Hospital, Sassari
                [17 ]Radioterapia Oncologica, Ospedale Santa Maria Annunziata, Bagno a Ripoli, Florence
                [18 ]Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar di Valpolicella
                [19 ]Department of Oncology, Mater Salutis Hospital, Legnago
                [20 ]Oncology Unit, Ospedale del Mare, Naples
                [21 ]Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neuroscience, City of Health and Science and University of Turin, Turin
                [22 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Miulli General Regional Hospital, Acquaviva delle Fonti
                [23 ]IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) ‘Dino Amadori’, Meldola
                [24 ]Oncology Unit, Ospedale Perrino, Brindisi
                [25 ]Division of Oncology, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari, Bari
                [26 ]Oncology Unit, Macerata Hospital, Macerata
                [27 ]Oncology Unit, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Cefalù
                [28 ]Health Directorate, Azienda Sanitaria dell’Alto Adige, Bolzano
                [29 ]Department of Oncology, Ospedale Civile, Rovigo
                [30 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, University of Pisa, Pisa
                [31 ]Clinical Research Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy
                Author notes
                [] Correspondence to: Dr Mario Caccese, Department of Oncology, Oncology 1, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, 35128 Padua, Italy. Tel: 0039 0498215918 mario.caccese@ 123456iov.veneto.it
                Article
                S2059-7029(24)00711-7 102943
                10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102943
                10959650
                38492275
                01d4cce6-1ea1-4086-8a62-44a2490eb681
                © 2024 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                glioblastoma,regorafenib,recurrent,regoma,real-world
                glioblastoma, regorafenib, recurrent, regoma, real-world

                Comments

                Comment on this article