A Bayesian adaptive randomized phase II multicenter trial of bevacizumab with or without vorinostat in adults with recurrent glioblastoma

• Published in: Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.) Vol. 22; no. 10; pp. 1505 - 1515
• Main Authors: Puduvalli, Vinay K, Wu, Jing, Yuan, Ying, Armstrong, Terri S, Vera, Elizabeth, Wu, Jimin, Xu, Jihong, Giglio, Pierre, Colman, Howard, Walbert, Tobias, Raizer, Jeffrey, Groves, Morris D, Tran, David, Iwamoto, Fabio, Avgeropoulos, Nicholas, Paleologos, Nina, Fink, Karen, Peereboom, David, Chamberlain, Marc, Merrell, Ryan, Penas Prado, Marta, Yung, W K Alfred, Gilbert, Mark R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US Oxford University Press 14.10.2020
• Subjects: Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - therapeutic use; Bayes Theorem; Bevacizumab - therapeutic use; Brain Neoplasms - drug therapy; Clinical Investigations; Glioblastoma - drug therapy; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - drug therapy; Vorinostat; recurrent glioblastoma; bevacizumab; Bayesian adaptive trial design; vorinostat; progression free survival
• ISSN: 1522-8517; 1523-5866
• DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa062

Abstract Background Bevacizumab has promising activity against recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). However, acquired resistance to this agent results in tumor recurrence. We hypothesized that vorinostat, a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor with anti-angiogenic effects, would prevent acquired resistance to bevacizumab. Methods This multicenter phase II trial used a Bayesian adaptive design to randomize patients with recurrent GBM to bevacizumab alone or bevacizumab plus vorinostat with the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes assessment (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor module [MDASI-BT]). Eligible patients were adults (≥18 y) with histologically confirmed GBM recurrent after prior radiation therapy, with adequate organ function, KPS ≥60, and no prior bevacizumab or HDAC inhibitors. Results Ninety patients (bevacizumab + vorinostat: 49, bevacizumab: 41) were enrolled, of whom 74 were evaluable for PFS (bevacizumab + vorinostat: 44, bevacizumab: 30). Median PFS (3.7 vs 3.9 mo, P = 0.94, hazard ratio [HR] 0.63 [95% CI: 0.38, 1.06, P = 0.08]), median OS (7.8 vs 9.3 mo, P = 0.64, HR 0.93 [95% CI: 0.5, 1.6, P = 0.79]) and clinical benefit were similar between the 2 arms. Toxicity (grade ≥3) in 85 evaluable patients included hypertension (n = 37), neurological changes (n = 2), anorexia (n = 2), infections (n = 9), wound dehiscence (n = 2), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (n = 2), and colonic perforation (n = 1). Conclusions Bevacizumab combined with vorinostat did not yield improvement in PFS or OS or clinical benefit compared with bevacizumab alone or a clinical benefit in adults with recurrent GBM. This trial is the first to test a Bayesian adaptive design with adaptive randomization and Bayesian continuous monitoring in patients with primary brain tumor and demonstrates the feasibility of using complex Bayesian adaptive design in a multicenter setting.