Targeted therapy is a significant benefit in the treatment of cancer patients. Bevacizumab improves overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The clinical effectiveness of bevacizumab is similar to its efficacy in randomised controlled trials. However, the costs of bevacizumab treatment as well as other agents of targeted treatment are discussed between the health care payers, the regulatory authorities and the members of professional societies. Biomarkers of bevacizumab treatment helpful in the selection of eligible groups of patients are still missing. This review focuses on current bevacizumab therapy of mCRC from the pharmacoeconomic perspective. The cost per a 14-day bevacizumab treatment cycle is approximately 31,000 CZK in the Czech Republic. External published pharmacoeconomics analyses have no clear conclusions. Their results are usually expressed as the cost per QALY gained in comparison with a comparator. They differ according to the economic situation of the particular countries. The pharmacoeconomic results have to be confirmed in the real clinical practice, and then the decision should be reassessed by using the uniform methodology, e.g. the Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

Objective: :To compare efficacy and safety of a biosimilar, Bevacizumab (Hetero) vs reference medicinal product (Bevacizumab, Roche) as first line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in combination with chemotherapy.
Methods: Patients of aged 18 to 65 with histologically pre-confirmed mCRC and treatment naïve with unresectable metastatic disease or distant metastases were enrolled and randomized to receive either Hetero-Bevacizumab or RMPBevacizumab along with chemotherapy (XELOX or FOLFOX-4) regimen over a period of 24 weeks (up to 8 cycles of Hetero-Bevacizumab/RMP-Bevacizumab+ XELOX regimen (each cycle of 3 weeks) or up to 12 cycles of Hetero-Bevacizumab/ RMP-Bevacizumab + FOLFOX-4 regimen (each cycle of 2 weeks). Bevacizumab was administered at 7.5 mg/kg as an IV infusion over 60-90 minutes on Day 1 of each treatment cycle. The efficacy endpoints were the overall response rate (CR+PR) and disease control rate (DCR) according to RECIST 1.1. The safety endpoints included assessments of treatment emergent adverse events and immunogenicity.
Results: 160 patients were screened; 111 patients were randomized in the study. No statistical significant difference in overall response rate between both the treatment groups (HB-MAB vs. RB-MAB: 35.56 % vs. 20%, P=0.28 at Week 6; 37.50 % vs. 30.77 %, P=0.73 at Week 12). Similar trend was observed for disease control rate (HB-MAB vs. RB-MAB: 100% vs. 96%, P=0.36 at Week 6; 95.83 vs. 100%, P=1.00 at Week 12).
Conclusions: Herero's Bevacizumab was found to be comparable to reference medical product, Bevacizumab in terms of efficacy and tolerability for the Indian patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies worldwide. One of the most important developments in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer is targeted therapy. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting VEGF induced angiogenesis, has been accepted as safe and efficient in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer for more than a decade. Addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is also associated with severe adverse events. We present a case of bevacizumab-induced bowel ischaemia associated with gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND/AIM: It remains unclear which chemotherapeutic regimens are better for the addition of bevacizumab. We conducted an exploratory randomized phase II trial comparing first-line S-1 plus cisplatin with bevacizumab and pemetrexed plus cisplatin with bevacizumab in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients received S-1 (80 mg/m
RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled in this study, and eligible patients were randomly assigned at 1:1 ratio to receive SCB (n=24) or PCB (n=24). The median number of chemotherapy and maintenance therapy for SCB and PCB was 4 (range, 1-6 cycles) and 4 (range, 2-6 cycles), and 5 (range, 0-39 cycles) and 5 (range, 0-28 cycles), respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) for PCB and SCB were 54.2% and 83.3%, respectively (p=0.06). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for PCB and SCB were 406 and 351 days, (p=0.96), and 678 and 1190 days, respectively (p=0.23). The mild adverse events were observed in both regimens. TS expression was more predictive of the chemotherapeutic response in SCB compared to PCB, but not for PFS.
CONCLUSION: The combination regimen of SCB was identified as having a similar activity and tolerability to that of PCB in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821.
FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation.
INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.
FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.

BACKGROUND: To describe the effects of intravitreal bevacizumab injection (IVB) and/or transpupillary thermotherapy (TTT) in the treatment of small pigmented choroidal lesions with subfoveal fluid (SFF), and to investigate prognostic value of the therapeutic response in future tumor growth.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 19 patients, who were diagnosed with choroidal neovascularization (CNV)-free small pigmented choroidal lesions and treated with IVB and/or TTT, was performed.
RESULTS: Complete resolution of SFF was achieved in two eyes (2/14; 14.3%) after IVB, and in three eyes (3/4; 75%) after TTT. Best corrected visual acuity was improved in two eyes (2/9; 22%) after IVB, and in three eyes (3/4; 75%) after TTT. Among five patients who underwent TTT after IVB, four patients (4/5; 80%) demonstrated additional advantage. All IVBs could not reduce tumor sizes. Rather, tumor growth was detected in seven out of 14 eyes (7/14; 50%) that underwent IVB. None of the patients who underwent TTT showed tumor growth. The lack of treatment response to IVB was suggestive of malignancy, as most small pigmented lesions that had no response to IVB showed tumor growth (86%, p = 0.010).
CONCLUSION: IVB was not effective in reducing tumor size and subfoveal fluid in small pigmented choroidal lesions. Therapeutic response to IVB can be used as an indicator between melanoma and nevus in small pigmented choroidal lesion.

Pilocytic astrocytomas (PA) are highly vascular tumors with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) signaling present in the tumor vasculature. PA may, therefore, be responsive to VEGF blockade with bevacizumab (BEV). Data regarding the use of BEV in refractory PA in adults are limited primarily to case reports and case series of patients with recurrent PA. We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study from 2009 to 2018. We screened 426 patients with pathologically confirmed PA. We identified 5 adult patients with PA who received BEV at our institution with sufficient clinical follow-up to derive evidence of the efficacy and toxicity. All 5 patients experienced tumor progression after initial therapies which included surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Four patients received BEV as monotherapy, whereas 1 received BEV with the continuation of previously initiated alkylating chemotherapy (temozolomide). The average duration of BEV therapy was 10.2 months (range, 1 to 20 mo) with an average follow-up of 47 months (range, 6 to 112 mo). One patient had a severe necrotizing rash in areas of skin contact and discontinued after 1 cycle of BEV. All patients had stabilization per RANO criteria, with 1 patient experiencing progression after 10 months on treatment. One patient had disease progression 5 years after completion of BEV, but the tumor responded to repeat treatment with BEV. Our institution's experience with the use of BEV in recurrent PA is in line with previous reports of therapeutic benefit in recurrent adult PA.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab. We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing PROs and HRQoL from both therapies.
METHODS: We assessed PROs and HRQoL from patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires at three sequential time points, including baseline. Global Health Status (GHS), functional and symptom scales, and Overall Treatment Utility (derived from clinical and patient-reported outcomes) were compared for the two treatment strategies.
RESULTS: Between January 2017 and April 2018, 44 patients were allocated to cetuximab (n = 19) or bevacizumab (n = 25). Except for RAS mutation status, patient baseline characteristics were generally well balanced across treatment groups. A higher proportion of patients experienced a deterioration in GHS (≥ 10%) in cetuximab arm - 53.8% (95% CI 25.1-80.8%) at 6 weeks and 66.7% (95% CI 29.9-92.5%) at 12 weeks-comparing to bevacizumab cohort: 18.2% (95% CI 5.2-40.3%) at 6 weeks and 12.5% (95% CI:1.6-38.3%) at 12 weeks. Treatment utility rates at 6 and 12 weeks were, respectively, 88.6% and 69.8% for bevacizumab, compared to 49% and 19.1% for cetuximab (p = 0.004), a difference confirmed in subset analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mCRC, cetuximab-containing regimens led to a progressive negative impact on PROs and global HRQoL, when compared to baseline and bevacizumab. Future research is needed to confirm these results. Our findings demonstrate the value of PROs when assessing comparative effectiveness of different treatment regimens.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab combined with cisplatin and paclitaxel for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of medical records of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.
RESULTS: Of the 52 patients, 33 (63.5%), 7 (13.5%) and 12 (23.1%) had recurrent, persistent and metastatic disease, respectively. Twenty-seven patients (51.9%) had prior platinum exposure. Possible bevacizumab-related serious adverse events included hypertension (n=3/52, 5.8%), febrile neutropenia (n=4/52, 7.7%) and fistula (n=2/52, 3.8%). Thirty-two recurrences (61.5%) and 20 deaths (38.5%) were noted. Median progression-free and overall survival was 9.8 months and 15.3 months, respectively. Recurrence included loco-regional (17/32, 59.4%), nodal (11/32, 34.4%), distant site (10/32, 31.3%) and peritoneal seeding (6/32, 18.8%).
CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab with cisplatin and paclitaxel for treating persistent, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer is feasible and well tolerated. Loco-regional recurrence was most frequent. Overall survival was worse with recurrence at >2 sites or distant metastases.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (AE-ILD) is the most serious complication in lung cancer patients with pre-existing ILD receiving chemotherapy. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in pathogenesis of AE-ILD is conflicting. The influence of bevacizumab (Bev), a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, on lung cancer patients with pre-existing ILD remains unclear. We examined the effect of Bev on reducing AE-ILD risk in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving chemotherapy.
METHODS: We analysed incidence of AE-ILD and outcomes of 48 patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with ILD who received first-line chemotherapy with (Bev group, n = 17) and without (non-Bev group, n = 31) Bev between July 2011 and July 2016. Gray's test, which was competing risk analysis during the study period, was performed for both groups.
RESULTS: The most common regimen used for first-line chemotherapy was the combination of carboplatin plus pemetrexed (PEM) in both groups. The incidences of chemotherapy-related AE-ILD 120 days after first-line chemotherapy initiation were significantly lower in the Bev than in the non-Bev groups (0% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.037, Gray's test). However, there were no differences in development of progressive disease of lung cancer and other events as the competing risk factors of AE-ILD between the two groups. Only patients receiving PEM-containing regimens also showed a significant difference in the incidence of AE-ILD between the two groups (p = 0.044). The overall-cumulative incidence of AE-ILD during the first-line and subsequent chemotherapy was 29.2% (14 of the 48). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the Bev than in the non-Bev groups (8.0 vs. 4.3 months, p = 0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of Bev to chemotherapy regimens may reduce the risk of chemotherapy-related AE-ILD in patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer remains a disease with poor prognosis and few treatment options, due to the lack of therapeutic targets. Bevacizumab, the first anti-VEGF agent approved in the treatment of cancer, has demonstrated efficacy in breast cancer in combination with paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Despite the fact that the benefit was particularly significant for triple-negative breast cancer with its approval in 2008 by the FDA, this decision was later reversed as there was no improvement in overall survival in addition to significant costs.
OBJECTIVES: The scope of the present study is to focus on the role of bevacizumab in triple-negative breast cancer through the analysis of overall survival, progression-free survival, and cost benefit among 45 patients in a French monocentric study and to discuss new paradigms of endpoints.
METHODS: All patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, for whom first-line treatment was bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel between January 2011 and April 2018 were included in this single-center retrospective study, and a chart review of all recruited subjects was performed from medical records.
RESULTS: In this real-life study among 45 patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, bevacizumab provided a significant benefit for a category of patients, with longer median progression-free survival and the ability of maintenance therapy associated to limited side effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Beyond being the phoenix of breast oncology and a magnet of controversy, the case of bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer highlights one of the greatest challenges in oncology, namely to balance modest clinical benefits with exponential costs. A balance needs to be found between health care affordability, high price of progress, and the best medical decision for the patients, in order to avoid the "unbreathable tipping point" we are actually dealing with.

BACKGROUND: A first-line biologic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is still controversial. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of first-line cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC.
METHODS: In March 2018, an electronic search of the following biomedical databases was performed: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Knowledge. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or observational cohort studies (OCSs) were included. Subgroup analyses of all RCTs were performed in all outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software 5.3.
RESULTS: Two RCTs and three OCSs, involving a total 2576 patients, were included. The meta-analysis reported that cetuximab was associated with a longer overall survival (OS) [HR 0.89, 95% CI (0.81-0.98); p = 0.02], a higher ORR [RR 1.11, 95% CI (1.03-1.19); p = 0.006], higher complete response [RR 3.21, 95% CI (1.27-8.12); p = 0.01] and a greater median depth of response than bevacizumab. However, no significant difference was observed between cetuximab and bevacizumab groups for PFS, DCR, partial response, progressive disease, curative intent metastasectomy, EORR and incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events. In the subgroup meta-analyses of the RCTs, inconsistent results compared to the main analysis, however, were found, in the ORR, DCR and curative intent metastasectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicates that compared to bevacizumab treatment, cetuximab provides a clinically relevant effect in first-line treatment against mCRC, at the cost of having lower stable disease.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of bevacizumab combined with erlotinib (B + E) for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, especially for sorafenib-refractory patients, has been observed and evaluated in several trials. We conducted this single arm meta-analysis to generally assess the benefit and risk with B + E for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for related studies. The main outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse effects (AEs).
RESULTS: Eight phase II clinical trials including 342 hepatocellular carcinoma patients were analyzed. The pooled ORR was 12.6% (95% CI: 6.3-19.0%), and the pooled DCR was 54.5% (95% CI: 48.9-66.8%). The 16-week PFS rate was 50.2% (95% CI: 38.2-62.2%). The 6- and 12-month OS rates were 77.8% (95% CI: 71.3-84.2%) and 44.9% (95% CI: 36.8-53.0%). The main grade 3-4 AEs were fatigue (11.9%), diarrhea (9.0%), hypertension (6.7%), acne (5.8%) and hemorrhage (5.3%). The only RCT showed that the B + E regimen had a consistent response and equable median OS but fewer toxicities (grade 3-4 AEs: 19% vs. 27%) than sorafenib. Subgroup analysis showed that as a second-line treatment, the B + E regimen had substantial value with a favorable PFS-16w (P = 0.012), OS-12 m (P = 0.048) and a favorable tendency of ORR (P = 0.089), but obvious toxicities in the second-line setting could not be neglected.
CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab combined with erlotinib is effective for treating hepatocellular carcinoma patients, especially sorafenib-refractory patients. More well-designed and large-scale RCTs are warranted to prove our findings.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy based on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is an emerging trend in cancer treatment, but the clinical value of EGFR-TKIs combination therapy remains controversial. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EGFR-TKIs combination therapies with monotherapies, aiming to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EGFR-TKIs based combination therapy and to find a more beneficial combination strategy.
METHODS: We searched for clinical studies that evaluated EGFR-TKIs combination therapy in cancer. We extracted data from these studies to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of overall response rate (ORR) and grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs), the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were identified (n = 3774). Treatments included combinations of EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, combinations of EGFR-TKIs and radiotherapy, and combinations of EGFR-TKIs and bevacizumab. EGFR-TKIs combination therapies showed higher ORR [RR: 1.62; 95% confidence interval (95% CI):1.16-2.26; P = .005], PFS (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.64-0.89; P = .001), and OS (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = .013) values than monotherapies. However, higher grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.02-3.15; P = .000) were observed in combination therapy than in monotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Our pooled analysis and subgroup analysis results showed that the addition of chemotherapy to EGFR-TKIs better benefits PFS and safety. Adding bevacizumab was associated with better ORR and OS. The efficacy and safety of a bevacizumab-EGFR-TKIs-chemotherapy combination should be investigated further.

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and endoglin in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients receiving chemotherapy with bevacizumab.
Materials and Methods: Between April 2012 and September 2013, 47 mCRC patients with a mean age of 58.5 ± 9.6 years were included in the study. Male-to-female ratio was 29/18. The baseline and posttreatment plasma PAI-1 and serum endoglin levels after 3 cycles of bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy were evaluated. The percent change between baseline and posttreatment levels after treatment was also recorded.
Results: The median follow-up duration was 26.6 months (range 1.8-70.2 months). The clinical benefit rate was 70% (partial response [32%], stable disease [38%]). Overall survival was 20.8 ± 1.5 months. The patients with progressive disease had statistically significantly higher baseline PAI-1 level (57.9 pg/mL vs. 29.9 pg/mL, P = 0.036). The percent change of the plasma PAI-1 level after the third cycle of treatment was also statistically significantly lower in those with clinical benefit (P = 0.035). However, there was no statistically significant difference in endoglin level and its change after therapy with respect to the response to treatment (P = 0.771 and P = 0.776, respectively). Plasma PAI-1 level had no statistically significant effect on survival (P = 0.709).
Conclusion: Baseline plasma PAI-1 level and its percent change with bevacizumab were shown to have statistically significant predictive value for the response to therapy whereas serum endoglin had no statistically significant predictive value for the response to therapy. However, neither PAI-1 nor endoglin had prognostic significance in mCRC.

AIMS: BEAWARE investigated the pattern of first-line bevacizumab early interruption in the Italian real-world setting of metastatic colorectal cancer.
METHODS: A total of 386 patients were followed for 15 months after first-line chemotherapy + bevacizumab start. The rate of bevacizumab interruption for progression or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) constituted the primary endpoint.
RESULTS: A total of 78.2% of patients interrupted bevacizumab: 56.6% for progression, 7.3% for ADRs, and 36.1% for other reasons. Median treatment duration was 6.7, 2.5, and 4.6 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 months; however, 35.8% of patients were not progressed and were thus censored at the data cutoff of 15 months, while 21.8% were still receiving bevacizumab. Patients discontinuing for progression/ADRs more frequently had metastases in >1 site (
CONCLUSIONS: In Italy, first-line bevacizumab is interrupted mainly for progression, only 7.3% due to adverse events, and about one third of cases for other reasons. In clinical practice, the attitude to treat until progression as per guidelines might be implemented. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01609075.

Bevacizumab (Bv) remains frequently prescribed in glioblastoma (GBM) patients, especially at recurrence. We conducted a prospective clinical trial with 29 recurrent GBM patients treated with Bv alone with a longitudinal follow-up of different circulating immune cells [complete blood count, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), classical, intermediate, non-classical and Tie2 monocytes, VEGFR1+ and regulatory T cells (Treg)]. We observed a significant increase for leucocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils and classical monocytes and a decrease for the fraction of Treg during the treatment. The best prognostic values for survival under Bv were obtained for basal neutrophils and Treg. Counts below 3.9 G/L for neutrophils and above 0.011 G/L for Treg were associated with an overall survival of 17.5 and 19.9 months, respectively, as compared with 5.4 and 5.6 months, respectively, for counts above and below these cutoffs (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001). No prognostic impact was observed for neutrophils in a retrospective cohort of 26 patients treated with nitrosoureas alone. In another retrospective validation cohort of 61 GBM patients treated at recurrence with a Bv-containing regimen, an interaction was observed between neutrophils and corticosteroid intake. The predictive value of neutrophils on survival under Bv was lost in patients treated with corticosteroids, when steroid-free patients with a low neutrophil count had a particularly long median survival of 3.4 years. These two simply accessible criteria (basal neutrophils and steroid intake) could be used to reserve this relatively costly treatment for patients likely to be the most responsive to Bv and prevent unnecessary side effects in others.

PURPOSE: The objective of the current study was to explore the efficacy of using pH-weighted amine CEST-EPI as a potential non-invasive imaging biomarker for treatment response and/or failure in recurrent GBM patients treated with bevacizumab.
METHOD: A total of 11 patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab were included in this prospective study. CEST-EPI, perfusion MRI, and standardized anatomic MRI were obtained in patients before and after bevacizumab administration. CEST-EPI measures of magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry (MTR
RESULT: Tumor acidity, measured with MTR
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests pH-weighted amine CEST MRI may have value as a non-invasive, early imaging biomarker for bevacizumab treatment response and failure. Early decreases MTR

BACKGROUND/AIM: A phase II trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of gefitinib plus bevacizumab for EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either gefitinib at 250 mg/day alone or with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks.
RESULTS: Ten patients were allocated to the gefitinib group (group A) and 6 to the gefitinib plus bevacizumab group (group B). Median survival time (80%CI) for progression-free survival (PFS) was 15.1 months for group A, and 5.4 months for group B. Overall survival probability at 1 year (95%CI) was 0.750 for group A, and 0.667 for group B. The response rate was 44 % for group A and 50 % for group B. Adverse events occurred at a similar frequency in both groups.
CONCLUSION: PFS was shorter in group B than group A, and therefore there was no basis to proceed to a phase III trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Administration of bevacizumab to ovarian cancer patients with distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is problematic because of lack of evidence about the likely outcomes. We conducted a preliminary study in ovarian cancer patients with DVT who received bevacizumab combined with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).
METHODS: We retrospectively investigated patients with advanced or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer and distal DVT diagnosed by ultrasonography who underwent chemotherapy containing bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) combined with DOAC therapy.
RESULTS: Bevacizumab was administered to 88 patients, including 7 patients (7.9%) receiving concomitant DOAC therapy for distal DVT. In these 7 patients, the median body mass index was 21.3 kg/m
CONCLUSION: In ovarian cancer patients who have distal DVT, bevacizumab can possibly be administered safely when combined with a DOAC. To confirm this finding, further investigation on a larger scale will be required.

PURPOSE: Antihypertensive therapy may improve bevacizumab efficacy in cancer patients. We examined efficacy and toxicity of angiotensin system inhibitors (ASI) and other antihypertensive drugs in bevacizumab treated recurrent glioblastoma patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively combined a national prescription registry with a clinical database with recurrent glioblastoma patients (n = 243).
RESULTS: Patients who initiated ASI after bevacizumab (n = 26) showed a tendency towards improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with hazard rate (HR) reductions (HR = 0.70 and HR = 0.79, respectively). Calcium antagonists during bevacizumab therapy significantly improved OS (HR = 0.57).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall the study supports a potential beneficial effect of antihypertensive treatment on prognosis of bevacizumab treated glioblastoma patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The combination of bevacizumab (BEV) plus interferon alpha-2a (IFN) constitutes an option for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Real-world data from routine clinical practice are rare and were, therefore, collected during this non-interventional study (NIS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 359 patients received at least one dose of BEV (safety set population; SAF), 354 patients had at least one post-dose effectiveness assessment and formed the full analysis set (FAS) of the final analysis.
RESULTS: Progression-free survival (10.2 months, 95% CI=8.6-12.6) and overall response rate (27.2%) outcomes match the results from the phase III trials AVOREN and CALGB 90206. Longer overall survival (28.7 months, 95% CI=24.5-38.3) probably is an effect of patient characteristics and follow-up therapies. Safety findings were comparable to the results of the Phase III trials, although comprehensive severity assessments were not provided.
CONCLUSION: Overall, efficacy and safety data from BEV plus IFN administered in routine clinical practice in an observational NIS are in line with results from the controlled phase III trials. (NCT02627144).

AIMS: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) is a rare disease accounting only for 4-5% of the whole mCRC and its optimal treatment still remains unclear. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the outcome of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab in this setting.
METHODS: A total of 729 colorectal cancer patients with dMMR status were screened for eligibility. The Kaplan-Meier method, the log-rank test and Cox analysis were utilized for survival analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 43 patients met the inclusion criteria and enrolled in the study. The median overall survival (OS) of entire cohort was 21.7 months. Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group exhibited a tendency of substantially higher overall response rate (ORR) than chemotherapy alone group (63.6% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.053), whereas the ORR between chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and chemotherapy alone group were similar (28.6% vs. 23.8%, P = 1.000). Compared with chemotherapy alone group, bevacizumab combined group achieved a significantly longer progression-free survival (10.0 months vs. 4.8 months, P = 0.028), whereas cetuximab combined group was not (6.8 months vs. 4.8 months, P = 0.158). Although the median OS seemed to favor bevacizumab combined group, no significant differences were detected between the three arms (33.7, 21.7 and 15.3 months, respectively; P = 0.345). Prognostic analysis showed that primary tumor resection was the positive prognostic factor of OS (hazards ratio: 0.438; P = 0.041).
CONCLUSION: dMMR mCRC seems resistant to chemotherapy and cetuximab. Bevacizumab combined therapy shows a sign of potentially favorable outcome in this subtype.

Background: The efficacy of temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy for treating newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM), a primary brain tumor with short survival, was demonstrated in a clinical trial in 2005, and since then, the standard-of-care for newly diagnosed GBM has been maximal safe surgery followed by 60 Gray of radiation with concomitant and adjuvant TMZ (standard radiotherapy and TMZ). In 2009, clinical trials also reported on the efficacy of bevacizumab for treating recurrent GBM. We performed a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of treatment regimens on overall survival for patients with GBM at a rural tertiary healthcare practice.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 307 consecutive, newly diagnosed GBM patients at one institution between 1995 and 2012 and assessed treatment patterns. We also compared overall survival according to the treatment received.
Results: Only 0.6% (1/163) of patients diagnosed before 2005 received standard radiotherapy and TMZ versus 36.1% (52/144) of patients diagnosed since 2005 (
Conclusions: TMZ and bevacizumab therapies were rapidly adopted in a rural tertiary healthcare setting, and patients who received these treatments had increased overall survival. However, advantageous prognostic factors in patients who received bevacizumab at recurrence may have influenced the extent of the increase in overall survival attributed to this treatment.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance treatment after 6 cycles of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab (CAPOXB) has demonstrated clinical activity and failure to compromise quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC) in a previous phase 3 CAIRO3 study. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAP-B versus CAP in maintenance treatment after 6-cycle CAPOXB induction therapy in Chinese postmenopausal women with untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC.
METHODS: During 2012-2016, prospectively maintained databases were reviewed to evaluate cohorts with untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC and stable disease or better after 6-cycle CAPOXB induction treatment. After induction treatment, all patients received either CAP-B or capecitabine (CAP) as maintenance treatment. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were the primary endpoints. Safety was the secondary endpoint.
RESULTS: A total of 263 women with untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC and stable disease or better after 6-cycle CAPOXB induction treatment were included for the evaluation of efficacy and safety (CAP-B-treated cohort, n = 130 and CAP-treated cohort, n = 133). The mPFS was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6-17.4) and 9.2 months (95% CI, 3.6-14.8) for the CAP-B-treated and CAP-treated cohorts, respectively (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32~0.85; P = 0.013). The mOS was 16.2 months (95% CI, 11.4-18.7) and 12.4 months (95% CI, 10.6-15.5) for the CAP-B- and CAP-treated cohorts, respectively (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51~0.94; P = 0.022). The CAP-B-treated cohort experienced significantly more grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea (P < 0.001) than the CAP-treated cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: CAP-B maintenance treatment after 6-cycle CAPOX-B in Chinese postmenopausal women with untreated KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC is poorer tolerated but has a more modest, if any, benefit compared with that of CAP maintenance treatment.

PURPOSE: The highly vascular malignant brain tumor glioblastoma (GBM) appears to be an ideal target for anti-angiogenic therapy; however, clinical trials to date suggest the VEGF antibody bevacizumab affects only progression-free survival. Here we analyze a group of patients with GBM who received bevacizumab treatment at recurrence and are stratified according to tumor molecular and genomic profile (TCGA classification), with the goal of identifying molecular predictors of the response to bevacizumab.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with a diagnosis of glioblastoma who were treated with bevacizumab in the recurrent setting at our hospital, from 2006 to 2014. Treatment was discontinued by the treating neuro-oncologists, based on clinical and radiographic criteria. Pre- and post-treatment imaging and genomic subtype were available on 80 patients. We analyzed time on bevacizumab and time to progression. EGFR gene amplification was determined by FISH.
RESULTS: Patients with classical tumors had a significantly shorter time on bevacizumab than mesenchymal, and proneural patients (2.7 vs. 5.1 vs. 6.4 and 6.0 months respectively, p = 0.011). Classical subtype and EGFR gene amplification were significantly associated with a shorter time to progression both in univariate (p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) and multivariate analysis (both p = 0.010).
CONCLUSION: EGFR gene amplification and classical subtype by TCGA analysis are associated with significantly shorter time to progression for patients with recurrent GBM when treated with bevacizumab. These findings can have a significant impact on decision-making and should be further validated prospectively.

Patients with malignant brain tumors have a poor prognosis. The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is considered a primary obstacle in therapeutic drug delivery to the brain. Intra-arterial (IA) delivery of therapeutic agents following osmotic BBB opening has been attempted for years, but high variability has limited its widespread implementation. It has recently been shown in animal studies that MRI is superior to X-ray for guiding IA infusions, as it allows direct visualization of the brain parenchyma supplied by the catheter and facilitates predictable drug targeting. Moreover, PET imaging has shown that IA rather than intravenous delivery of bevacizumab results in accumulation in the brain, providing a strong rationale for using the IA route. We present a patient with recurrent butterfly glioblastoma enrolled in a first-in-man MRI-guided neurointervention for targeted IA drug delivery.

BACKGROUND: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC.
METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy.
RESULT: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

Delta tocotrienol has anti-neoplastic activity as demonstrated in several in-vitro and in-vivo investigations. The effect relies on inhibition of different pathways. It also has antiangiogenic activity, and an additive effect to bevacizumab may be expected. The present study was a phase II trial of bevacizumab combined with tocotrienol in chemotherapy refractory ovarian cancer. The study also included analysis of circulating tumor specific HOXA9 methylated DNA (HOXA9 meth-ctDNA) during treatment. The study included 23 patients. The rate of disease stabilization was 70% with very low toxicity. The median PFS was 6.9 months and the median OS 10.9 months, which is rather high compared to the current literature. A division of the patients according to level of HOXA9 meth-ctDNA already after the first cycle of chemotherapy resulted in two groups of patients with different prognoses. Patients with an increasing level of HOXA9 meth-ctDNA had a median PFS and OS of 1.4 and 4.3 months, respectively, compared to 7.8 and 12 months in the group with stable or decreasing levels. The combination of bevacizumab and tocotrienol is potent in chemotherapy refractory ovarian cancer. The level of HOXA9 meth-ctDNA after one cycle of chemotherapy holds important prognostic information.

Background Improving the survival of patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer requires the use of chemotherapy to be managed with minimum adverse effects. Randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown promising results with a combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib to block two important tumor growth pathways, namely vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor. Aim of the Review We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of the combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib with bevacizumab alone in the maintenance treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, by examining PFS, OS, overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity. This study performed a systematic review meta-analysis using existing randomized clinical trial. Methods Randomized controlled trials were systematically reviewed from PubMed, Cochrane library, SCOPUS, CRD, and Google scholar databases. After evaluating the quality of studies through the Cochrane checklist, data of the relevant studies were extracted. This meta-analysis included outcomes of overall survival, progression-free survival of the disease through the hazard ratio, and the upper and lower confidence intervals for the third and fourth degree side effects of relative risk. To perform the meta-analysis for both types of survival, two fixed and random effect models were used. Results A total of three trials, providing data of 682 patients who received maintenance treatment, were included in this meta-analysis. Conclusion The combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib significantly increased the overall survival compared to using bevacizumab alone [HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93]. This combination, effectively increased progression-free survival [HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.7-0.93] too. The side effects of diarrhea and grade III rash were more frequent in the group administered bevacizumab plus erlotinib. The combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib, in the maintenance treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, significantly improved the overall survival and progression-free survival of patients, and the resulting side effects were easily treatable.