Carboplatin and bevacizumab for recurrent malignant glioma

Mrugala, Maciej M.; Crew, Laurie K.; Fink, James R.; Spence, Alexander M.

doi:10.3892/ol.2012.839

Cited by 33 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is unclear whether BVZ is unique among other antiangiogenic agents in its role in the treatment of recurrent malignant gliomas, as well as the optimum combination of BVZ and agents having other mechanisms of action. 37,42–45,47,52 Finally, the combination of BVZ and radiosurgery may afford some benefits, as described later, though this remains an area of active investigation and controversy. 61 …”

Section: Chemotherapymentioning

confidence: 95%

Recurrent Malignant Gliomas

Kirkpatrick¹,

Sampson²

2014

Seminars in Radiation Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In almost all patients, malignant glioma recurs following initial treatment with maximal safe resection, conformal radiotherapy, and temozolomide. This review describes the many options for treatment of recurrent malignant gliomas, including reoperation, alternating electric field therapy, chemotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy or radiosurgery, or some combination of these modalities, presenting the evidence for each approach. No standard of care has been established, though the antiangiogenic agent, bevacizumab; stereotactic radiotherapy or radiosurgery; and, perhaps, combined treatment with these 2 modalities appear to offer modest benefits over other approaches. Clearly, randomized trials of these options would be advantageous, and novel, more efficacious approaches are urgently needed.

show abstract

Section: Chemotherapymentioning

confidence: 95%

Recurrent Malignant Gliomas

Kirkpatrick¹,

Sampson²

2014

Seminars in Radiation Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…27,28,32,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] In addition, several retrospective studies have also been reported combining bevacizumab and irinotecan; carboplatin; carboplatin and cetuximab; carboplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide; lomustine; carmustine; etoposide; or temozolomide. [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] Although these small studies are not easily compared due to their size and various patient populations, the consensus to date has been that no combination significantly surpasses the outcomes of bevacizumab monotherapy for recurrent glioma. 9 …”

Section: Early Study Of Bevacizumab In Patients With Recurrent Glioblmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bevacizumab and glioblastoma: Scientific review, newly reported updates, and ongoing controversies

Field

Jordan

Wen

et al. 2014

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 2015;121:997

show abstract

“…By removing available circulating VEGF, frequently overexpressed in malignant cancer, bevacizumab inhibits the proliferation of endothelial cells and the formation of new blood vessels, frequently resulting in remarkable responses 14 15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of innovation for biotech drugs: an Italian analysis of products licensed in Europe between 2004 and 2011

Andria

Auriemma²,

Attanasio

et al. 2013

Eur J Hosp Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Biotechnology has promoted the discovery and development of new types of therapeutical agents for use in humans: biotech drugs offer innovative, targeted therapies with enormous potential to address unmet medical needs of patients with cancer, AIDS and other serious diseases. However, the therapeutic application of these novel therapies poses serious problems concerning the connection between cost sustainability and innovative value. The aims of the present study are to assess the level of therapeutic innovation of biotech drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2004 and 2011, to make a comparison with the trend of biotech drugs approved between 1995–2003, as previously reported, and to evaluate their economic impact on the Italian healthcare system. Methods The data source used was the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) of human medicines available on European Medicines Agency (EMA) website. The scores for therapeutic innovation were assigned according to the algorithm created by Motola et al. Drug expenditure data was obtained from Information Management System–Health Italy database. The list of drugs under analysis was downloaded from European Medicines Agency website and information on approved drugs were retrieved from the European Public Assessment Reports as well as from PubMed databank. Results From 2004 to 2011, the European Medicines Agency approved 47 biotech drugs: 43 biopharmaceutical innovators and 4 vaccines. Our analysis involved 33 of the 47 biotech drugs approved: 18 products resulted in important therapeutic innovations, 6 in moderate and 5 in modest therapeutic innovations, 2 in pharmacological innovations and finally, 2 involved only technological innovations. We also evaluated the influence of biotech drugs and their different scores for innovation with regard to expenditure as well as consumption. In 2010 and in 2011, the major part of expenditure and consumption concerned biotech drugs classified as important therapeutic innovations, while moderate, modest, pharmacological and technological innovators revealed very reduced contributions in this regard. Conclusions Our study revealed that 50% of biotech drugs approved between 2004–2011 represented an important or moderate therapeutic innovation. The remaining biotech drugs did not add any extra value in the decision-making process concerning the application of economic strategies in the healthcare field. These considerations suggest decision-makers should optimise application of health technology assessment strategies aimed at evaluating new technologies and sustainable costs in clinical practice.

show abstract

Carboplatin and bevacizumab for recurrent malignant glioma

Cited by 33 publications

References 20 publications

Recurrent Malignant Gliomas

Recurrent Malignant Gliomas

Bevacizumab and glioblastoma: Scientific review, newly reported updates, and ongoing controversies

The impact of innovation for biotech drugs: an Italian analysis of products licensed in Europe between 2004 and 2011

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About