No abstract

Safe maximal resection followed by radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) is universally accepted as the first-line treatment for glioblastoma (GB), but no standard of care has yet been defined for managing recurrent GB (rGB). We used the French GB biobank (FGB) to evaluate the second-line options currently used, with a view to defining the optimal approach and future directions in GB research. We retrospectively analyzed data for 338 patients with de novo isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype GB recurring after TMZ chemoradiotherapy. Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan–Meier analyses were used to investigate survival outcomes. Median overall survival after first surgery (OS1) was 19.8 months (95% CI: 18.5–22.0) and median OS after first progression (OS2) was 9.9 months (95% CI: 8.8–10.8). Two second-line options were noted for rGB patients in the FGB: supportive care and treatments, with systemic treatment being the treatment most frequently used. The supportive care option was independently associated with a shorter OS2 (p < 0.001). None of the systemic treatment regimens was unequivocally better than the others for rGB patients. An analysis of survival outcomes based on time to first recurrence (TFR) after chemoradiotherapy indicated that survival was best for patients with a long TFR (≥18 months; median OS1: 44.3 months (95% CI: 41.7–56.4) and median OS2: 13.0 months (95% CI: 11.2–17.7), but that such patients constituted only a small proportion of the total patient population (13.0%). This better survival appeared to be more strongly associated with response to first-line treatment than with response to second-line treatment, indicating that the recurring tumors were more aggressive and/or resistant than the initial tumors in these patients. In the face of high rates of treatment failure for GB, the establishment of well-designed large cohorts of primary and rGB samples, with the help of biobanks, such as the FGB, taking into account the TFR and survival outcomes of GB patients, is urgently required for solid comparative biological analyses to drive the discovery of novel prognostic and/or therapeutic clinical markers for GB.