ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2017
Optimizing bevacizumab dosing in glioblastoma: less is more.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Similar overall survival with reduced vs. standard dose bevacizumab monotherapy in progressive glioblastoma.Cancer medicine · 2020Trial
- Repeat stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of brain metastases locally recurrent following initial radiosurgery.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma: does dose matter? Our monocentric and comparative experience.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Bevacizumab exerts dose-dependent risk for intracranial hemorrhage in patients with malignant gliomas.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- The efficacy of stereotactic radiotherapy followed by bevacizumab and temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: a case report.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Polymorphism at codon 31 of CDKN1A (p21) as a predictive factor for bevacizumab therapy in glioblastoma multiforme.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Dose-dependent efficacy of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Update on Chemotherapeutic Approaches and Management of Bevacizumab Usage for Glioblastoma.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Bevacizumab dose adjustment to improve clinical outcomes of glioblastoma.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- T-Cell based therapies for overcoming neuroanatomical and immunosuppressive challenges within the glioma microenvironment.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2020Review
- Long-term survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab: a multicentric retrospective study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2019Article
- Current State of Immunotherapy for Treatment of Glioblastoma.Current treatment options in oncology · 2019Review
- A systematic review of targeted therapy for vestibular schwannoma in patients withNeuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compared to traditional chemotherapies, where dose limiting toxicities represent the maximum possible dose, monoclonal antibody therapies are used at doses well below maximum tolerated dose. However, there has been little effort to ascertain whether there is a submaximal dose at which the efficacy/complication ratio is maximized. Thus, despite the general practice of using Bevacizumab (BEV) at dosages of 10 mg/kg every other week for glioma patients, there has not been much prior work examining whether the relatively high complication rates reported with this agent can be decreased by lowering the dose without impairing efficacy. We assessed charts from 80 patients who received BEV for glioblastoma to survey the incidence of complications relative to BEV dose. All patients were treated with standard upfront chemoradiation. The toxicity was graded based on the NCI CTCAE, version 4.03. The rate of BEV serious related adverse events was 12.5% (n = 10/80). There were no serious adverse events (≥grade 3) when the administered dose was (<3 mg/kg/week), compared to a 21% incidence in those who received higher doses (≥3 mg/kg/week) (P < 0.01). Importantly, the three patient deaths attributable to BEV administration occurred in patients receiving higher doses. Patients who received lower doses also had a better survival rate, although this did not reach statistical significance [median OS 39 for low dose group vs. 17.3 for high dose group (P = 0.07)]. Lower rates of serious BEV related toxicities are noted when lower dosages are used without diminishing positive clinical impact. Further work aimed at optimizing BEV dosage is justified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28667595What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.