{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0343622597553873, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027955736750145604, 'mean_word_length': 4.804054054054054, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Added Value of Bevacizumab Concomitantly Administered with Carboplatin versus Carboplatin Alone in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastomas

Aims and Background Carboplatin (CBDCA) and bevacizumab (BEV) are active in glioblastoma (GBM) with different profiles of toxicity. To date, no study has compared the value of the addition of BEV to historical or traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy. We sought to determine the relative value of BEV in combination with CBDCA versus CBDCA alone in patients with recurrent GBM. Methods and Study design Eligible patients with progressive GBM following surgery, radiotherapy and temozolomide received CBDCA either alone (group 1, n = 25) or in combination with BEV (group 2, n = 23) at 5 mg/kg once every 3 weeks between June 2010 and December 2013. Baseline characteristics and outcomes after treatment were recorded. The primary end points of this retrospective analysis were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate. Secondary end points included safety and overall survival (OS). Results Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The median number of cycles was 4 in group 1 and 6 in group 2. No toxicities or intracerebral bleeding were observed. The objective response rate was higher in group 2 than group 1, 66% vs 24% (p = 0.003). The estimated median PFS and OS were 3.1 vs 6.7 months (p<0.0001) and 6.1 vs 8.6 months (p = 0.09) in group 1 vs group 2, respectively. Conclusions The combination of BEV and CBDCA is associated with improved response rates and survival compared with CBDCA alone. These results highlight the value of BEV in recurrent GBM. However, the clinical benefit of this interesting approach needs validation in a larger patient cohort.