Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31844886›Full record

Trial reportNeuro-oncology2020

Safety and efficacy of VB-111, an anticancer gene therapy, in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: results of a phase I/II study.

Andrew J Brenner, Katherine B Peters, James Vredenburgh, Felix Bokstein, Deborah T Blumenthal, Shlomit Yust-Katz, Idit Peretz, Bernice Oberman, Laurence S Freedman, Benjamin M Ellingson and 9 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neuro-oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew J BrennerUniversity of Texas Health San Antonio Mays Cancer Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Katherine B PetersPreston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
James VredenburghSaint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.
Felix BoksteinTel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Deborah T BlumenthalTel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Shlomit Yust-KatzNeuro-Oncology Unit, Davidoff Cancer Center at Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikvah, Israel and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Idit PeretzNeuro-Oncology Unit, Davidoff Cancer Center at Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikvah, Israel and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Bernice ObermanBiostatistics and Biomathematics Unit, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Laurence S FreedmanBiostatistics and Biomathematics Unit, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Benjamin M EllingsonUCLA Brain Tumor Imaging Laboratory, Center for Computer Vision and Imaging Biomarkers, Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Timothy F CloughesyDepartment of Neurology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Naamit SherVBL Therapeutics, Modi'in, Israel.
Yael C CohenVBL Therapeutics, Modi'in, Israel.
Noa Lowenton-SpierVBL Therapeutics, Modi'in, Israel.
Tamar Rachmilewitz MineiVBL Therapeutics, Modi'in, Israel.
Niva YakovVBL Therapeutics, Modi'in, Israel.
Itzhak MendelVBL Therapeutics, Modi'in, Israel.
Eyal BreitbartVBL Therapeutics, Modi'in, Israel.
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Vascular Biogenics (Israel) · ILTel Aviv University · ILSheba Medical Center · ILUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USCenter for Neuro-Oncology · USDuke Medical Center · USSaint Francis Hospital & Medical Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · US

Funding

Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JOHN N. NORTON · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
UCLA SPORE in Brain CancerP50CA211015 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Yvonne Yu-Hsuan Chen · 2017 to 2026
$25.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVB-111 is a non-replicating adenovirus carrying a Fas-chimera transgene, leading to targeted apoptosis of tumor vascular endothelium and induction of a tumor-specific immune response. This phase I/II study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of VB-111 with and without bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM).

methodsPatients with rGBM (n = 72) received VB-111 in 4 treatment groups: subtherapeutic (VB-111 dose escalation), limited exposure (LE; VB-111 monotherapy until progression), primed combination (VB-111 monotherapy continued upon progression with combination of bevacizumab), and unprimed combination (upfront combination of VB-111 and bevacizumab). The primary endpoint was median overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were safety, overall response rate, and progression-free survival (PFS).

resultsVB-111 was well tolerated. The most common adverse event was transient mild-moderate fever. Median OS time was significantly longer in the primed combination group compared with both LE (414 vs 223 days; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; P = 0.043) and unprimed combination (414 vs 141.5 days; HR, 0.24; P = 0.0056). Patients in the combination phase of the primed combination group had a median PFS time of 90 days compared with 60 in the LE group (HR, 0.36; P = 0.032), and 63 in the unprimed combination group (P = 0.72). Radiographic responders to VB-111 exhibited characteristic, expansive areas of necrosis in the areas of initial enhancing disease.

conclusionsPatients with rGBM who were primed with VB-111 monotherapy that continued after progression with the addition of bevacizumab showed significant survival and PFS advantage, as well as specific imaging characteristics related to VB-111 mechanism of action. These results warrant further assessment in a randomized controlled study.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGenetic TherapyGlioblastomaAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabHumansProgression-Free SurvivalBevacizumabanti-angiogenesisgene therapyglioblastomaVB-111viral immuno-oncology

Identifiers

PMID31844886
PMCPMC7229257
OpenAlexW2995556690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.