Use of Bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma: a scoping review and evidence map

• Published in: BMC cancer 2023-06, Vol.23 (1), p.544-544, Article 544
• Main Authors: Fu, Minjie, Zhou, Zhirui, Huang, Xiao, Chen, Zhenchao, Zhang, Licheng, Zhang, Jinsen, Hua, Wei, Mao, Ying
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Bevacizumab; Bevacizumab - adverse effects; Brain; Brain cancer; Brain tumors; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Care and treatment; Chemotherapy; Clinical trials; Cognitive ability; Combined therapy; Development and progression; Diffusion coefficient; Dosage; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Edema; Glioblastoma; Glioblastoma - drug therapy; Glioblastoma multiforme; Humans; Lomustine; Medical prognosis; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Monoclonal antibodies; Mutation; Patients; Prognosis; Quality of Life; Radiation therapy; Recurrent glioblastoma; Relapse; Surgery; Survival; Targeted cancer therapy; Tumor staging; Tumors
• ISSN: 1471-2407; 1471-2407
• DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11043-6

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most malignant primary tumor in the brain, with poor prognosis and limited effective therapies. Although Bevacizumab (BEV) has shown promise in extending progression-free survival (PFS) treating GBM, there is no evidence for its ability to prolong overall survival (OS). Given the uncertainty surrounding BEV treatment strategies, we aimed to provide an evidence map associated with BEV therapy for recurrent GBM (rGBM). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the period from January 1, 1970, to March 1, 2022, for studies reporting the prognoses of patients with rGBM receiving BEV. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). The secondary endpoints were PFS, steroid use reduction, and risk of adverse effects. A scoping review and an evidence map were conducted to explore the optimal BEV treatment (including combination regimen, dosage, and window of opportunity). Patients with rGBM could gain benefits in PFS, palliative, and cognitive advantages from BEV treatment, although the OS benefits could not be verified with high-quality evidence. Furthermore, BEV combined therapy (especially with lomustine and radiotherapy) showed higher efficacy than BEV monotherapy in the survival of patients with rGBM. Specific molecular alterations (IDH mutation status) and clinical features (large tumor burden and double-positive sign) could predict better responses to BEV administration. A low dosage of BEV showed equal efficacy to the recommended dose, but the optimal opportunity window for BEV administration remains unclear. Although OS benefits from BEV-containing regimens could not be verified in this scoping review, the PFS benefits and side effects control supported BEV application in rGBM. Combining BEV with novel treatments like tumor-treating field (TTF) and administration at first recurrence may optimize the therapeutic efficacy. rGBM with a low apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCL), large tumor burden, or IDH mutation is more likely to benefit from BEV treatment. High-quality studies are warranted to explore the combination modality and identify BEV-response subpopulations to maximize benefits.