ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2018
Rechallenge with bevacizumab in patients with glioblastoma progressing off therapy.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeated responders to bevacizumab combination treatment in recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective case study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Long-term survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab: a multicentric retrospective study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2019Article
- Bevacizumab rechallenge in glioblastoma patients with initial response to bevacizumab who later progress off therapy.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2018Article
- Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy vs single-agent therapy in recurrent glioblastoma: evidence from randomized controlled trials.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rechallenge with temozolomide has been shown to be a valid option in selected patients with progressive glioblastoma. Herein, we assessed the efficacy of rechallenge with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients progressing off therapy. We retrospectively identified and analyzed the characteristics of patients with glioblastoma rechallenged with a bevacizumab-based chemotherapy regimen after having received bevacizumab as first-line treatment in association with temozolomide radiochemotherapy or at recurrence in association with temozolomide, CCNU or irinotecan. Twenty-five patients were identified. In all included patients, the first bevacizumab treatment resulted in an objective response and was discontinued for reasons other than disease progression (adverse event n = 9, physician or patient decision n = 16). Median duration of first bevacizumab treatment was 6 months (range: 2-58 months). None of the patients presented a rebound effect after bevacizumab discontinuation. The median interval between discontinuation of first bevacizumab treatment and bevacizumab rechallenge was 8.9 months (range: 2-58 months). At this time, bevacizumab was given in association with lomustine (n = 17), temozolomide (n = 6), irinotecan (n = 1), or alone (n = 1). Bevacizumab rechallenge resulted in an objective response in 15 patients (60%). Median progression-free survival was 6.7 months and overall survival was 9.6 months after bevacizumab rechallenge. Timing of first bevacizumab treatment (as first-line treatment or at recurrence) was not associated with the duration of response after treatment rechallenge. In the present series, patients who responded to bevacizumab and in whom this treatment was discontinued in the absence of tumor progression seemed to benefit from rechallenge with a bevacizumab-based chemotherapy regimen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.