Cited by 70Glioma Diagnosis and TreatmentAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

RTOG 0825: Phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating bevacizumab (Bev) in patients (Pts) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM).

Gilbert, Mark R., Dignam, James, Won, Minhee, Blumenthal, Deborah T., Vogelbaum, Michael A., Aldape, Kenneth D., Colman, Howard, Chakravarti, Arnab +12 more·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

1 Background: Chemoradiation (CRT) with temozolomide (TMZ/RT→TMZ) is the standard of care for newly diagnosed GBM. This trial determined if the addition of Bev to standard CRT improves survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in newly diagnosed GBM. Methods: This phase III trial was conducted by the RTOG, NCCTG, and ECOG. Neurologically stable pts > 18 yrs with KPS ≥ 60, and > 1cm 3 tumor tissue block, were randomized to Arm 1: standard CRT + placebo or Arm 2: standard CRT plus Bev (10 mg/kg iv q 2wks). Experimental treatment began at wk 4 of radiation then thru 6-12 cycles of maintenance chemotherapy. Protocol specified co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS, with significance levels of .023 and .002, respectively. At progression, treatment was unblinded and pts allowed to crossover or continue Bev. Symptom, QOL and neurocognitive (NCF) testing was performed in the majority of pts. Secondary analyses evaluated impact of MGMT methylation (meth) and prognostic 9 gene signature status. Results: From 978 registered pts, 637 were randomized. Inadequate tissue (n=105) and blood on imaging (n=40) were key reasons for non-randomization. No difference was found between arms for OS (median 16.1 vs. 15.7 mo, p = 0.11). PFS was extended for Arm 2 (7.3 vs. 10.7 mo, p = 0.004). Pts with MGMT meth had superior OS (23.2 vs. 14.3 mo, p < 0.001) and PFS (14.1 vs. 8.2 mo, p < 0.001). Neither the 9 gene signature nor MGMT predicted selective benefit for Bev treatment, but best prognosis pts (MGMT meth, favorable 9-gene), had a worse survival trend with Bev (15.7 vs 25 mo p = 0.08). To date, 128 pts were unblinded on Arm 1 (salvage Bev in 86) and 87 pts on Arm 2 (continued Bev in 39). Increased grade ≥ 3 toxicity was seen with Bev, mostly neutropenia, hypertension, and DVT/PE. Conclusions: The addition of Bev for newly diagnosed GBM did not improve OS, did improve PFS but did not reach the significance criterion. MGMT and 9 gene profile did not identify selective benefit, but risk subset results suggested strongly against the upfront use of Bev in the best prognosis pts. Full interpretation of the PFS results incorporating symptom burden, QOL, and NCF is ongoing. Support: NCI U10 CA 21661, U10 CA37422, and Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT00884741.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2013.31.18_suppl.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One of the 6 out-of-sample sites (Site 11) contributed aggregated a priori data from a multi-site randomized clinical trial for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

    “One of these 6 out-of-sample sites (Site 11) contributed aggregated a priori data from a multi-site randomized clinical trial for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00884741, RTOG082572,73, ACRIN668674,75), with inherent diversity benefiting the intended generalizability validation purpose.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilbert, M. R., Dignam, J., Won, M., Blumenthal, D. T., Vogelbaum, M. A., Aldape, K. D., Colman, H., Chakravarti, A., Jeraj, R., Armstrong, T. S., Wefel, J. S., Brown, P. D., Jaeckle, K. A., Schiff, D., Atkins, J. N., Brachman, D., Werner-Wasik, M., Komaki, R., Sulman, E. P., & Mehta, M. P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • RTOG Foundation (US)
  • Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (IL)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
  • University of Virginia Medical Center (US)
  • NSABP Foundation (US)
  • Arizona Oncology Services Foundation, Phoenix, AZ
  • Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2013-06-20
Volume
31
Issue
18_suppl
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W4251989766
Cited by
70
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 11
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Angiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
glioblastoma, bevacizumab, chemoradiotherapy, temozolomide, overall survival, progression-free survival, MGMT promoter methylation, predictive biomarkers, salvage therapy, neurocognitive function, quality of life, treatment toxicity, newly diagnosed glioblastoma, maintenance chemotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review