Bevacizumab for non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastasis: A meta-analysis

Ping Liang; Yu-Dong Wang; Zong-Min Wei; Qi-Jun Deng; Tong Xu; Jiang Liu; Na Luo; Juan Hou

doi:10.1515/med-2020-0192

Article Open Access

Bevacizumab for non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastasis: A meta-analysis

Ping Liang , Yu-Dong Wang , Zong-Min Wei , Qi-Jun Deng , Tong Xu , Jiang Liu , Na Luo and Juan Hou

Published/Copyright: July 1, 2020

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Medicine Volume 15 Issue 1

Abstract

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases (BM) by performing meta-analyses of response and survival indices. Seventeen studies were included. BEV treatment was associated with a lower new BM incidence (hazard ratio: 0.30 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14, 0.46]) during follow-up. Disease control rate (DCR) of BEV-treated patients with BM was 91% [95% CI: 85, 95]. However, intracranial DCR was relatively higher (94% [95% CI: 87, 98]) than extracranial DCR (86% [95% CI: 74, 96]). DCR of NSCLC patients with BM was significantly better with BEV than with control therapies (odds ratio: 2.71 [95% CI: 1.26, 5.86], P = 0.01). Progression-free survival (PFS) of BEV-treated patients with and without BM was 7.1 months [95% CI: 6.2, 8.0] and 7.4 months [95% CI: 6.3, 8.4], respectively. Intracranial PFS of BEV-treated patients with BM was 8.0 months [95% CI: 6.0, 10.0]. Overall survival of BEV-treated NSCLC patients with and without BM was 13.5 months [95% CI: 11.4, 15.6] and 12.5 months [95% CI: 10.2, 14.8], respectively. The incidence of bleeding/hemorrhage in the central nervous system was 1% with BEV treatment.

Keywords: bevacizumab; NSCLC; brain metastasis; efficacy; safety

1 Introduction

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprises 80–85% of all types of lung cancer and is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality among men and women worldwide [1]. Of all NSCLC cases, 60–70% are diagnosed with stage IIIB or IV for which the prognosis is poor [2]. Active or passive smoking, alcohol use, air pollution, occupational exposure, and cancer susceptibility genes are important risk factors for NSCLC [3]. The 5-year survival of NSCLC patients after diagnosis is only 15% [3]. Age, stage of cancer, performance status, mediastinal lymph node status at diagnosis, comorbidity, leukocyte and neutrophil count, delay of management, and antitumor treatment are important determinants of the prognosis [4,5]. Brain metastasis (BM) is a common consequence of lung cancer, with an incidence of approximately 10% at initial diagnosis and up to 40% during the progression of disease [6,7].

Conventionally, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are the mainstays of treatment for BM. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of NSCLC patients with BM is approximately 8–9 months after stereotactic radiosurgery or whole-brain radiation therapy and chemotherapy [8,9]. With the development of targeted therapies, clinical and survival outcomes of NSCLC patients have been improved. Among tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), osimertinib as first-line treatment significantly improves PFS compared with first-generation TKIs (19 versus 10 months) in NSCLC patients [10]. Although patients can benefit from such therapies, some limitations still exist such as drug resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, the impaired ability of drugs to cross the blood–brain barrier, and impaired neurocognitive function caused by the whole-brain radiation therapy [11]. Therefore, advanced treatment options are needed for NSCLC patients.

Bevacizumab (BEV), a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), has exhibited efficacy in several cancer types. This antibody can inhibit tumor growth by competing with VEGF for VEGF receptors. Several trials are conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BEV, which are also well reviewed. A meta-analysis of 24 randomized controlled trials found that BEV treatment improved the overall survival (OS) and PFS in patients with metastatic solid tumors but was associated with a statistically higher incidence of fatal adverse events (AEs) overall and an increased risk of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage in patients with lung cancer [12]. However, a meta-analysis of cancer patients with BM found that BEV treatment was not associated with a significantly increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage [13].

The meta-analyses of patients with advanced NSCLC have also shown that BEV treatment with chemotherapy was able to significantly prolong OS and PFS and was well tolerated [14,15]. However, clinical potentials of BEV for NSCLC patients with BM are not clear. The aim of this study was to systematically review the studies that have evaluated the efficacy and safety of BEV in NSCLC patients with BM to perform meta-analyses of important indices to gain a refined evidence of the efficacy and safety of BEV in the treatment of NSCLC patients with BM.

2 Methods

2.1 Search strategy

Electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials, CNKI, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid SP, and PubMed) were searched for relevant articles published before January 2020. The following terms were used for the search: bevacizumab, Avastin, non-small cell lung cancer, brain, central nervous system, CNS, metastases, efficacy, safety, response, and survival. After identifying the relevant articles, we also checked the reference lists of the included studies to find additional relevant studies.

2.2 Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria were that the study (1) recruited adult NSCLC patients (tissue or cell diagnosed) with BM (diagnosed with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) who were treated with BEV alone or in combination with other therapies; (2) recruited adult NSCLC patients without BM and treated them with BEV to examine the incidence of BM during study period; and (3) reported quantitative data of efficacy and safety, especially the disease control rate (DCR), the overall response rate (ORR), PFS, OS, and the incidence of AEs. Exclusion criteria were that the study: (1) did not differentiate the outcomes by BM, (2) used BEV for brain lesions other than BM from NSCLC, (3) had a follow-up completion rate of less than 60%, and (4) published as case reports.

2.3 Data extraction and study quality assessment

The following data were extracted from research articles of the qualified studies: study design and conduct variables; demographic information and clinical and pathological characteristics of the patients; performance status and mutational characteristics of the patients; treatments and dosage schedules; treatment history; outcome data, especially for PFS, OS, DCR, ORR, treatment-related mortality, grade 3 or 4 AEs; and associational data. Three reviewers identified the eligible articles independently by the following eligibility criteria. Any disagreement was resolved with mutual discussions or by involving a senior colleague. Data extraction was also carried out by 3 reviewers independently and then outputs were unified by arriving at consensus when any disagreement arose. Study quality assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

2.4 Statistical analyses

The hazard ratios (HRs) reported by the individual studies were pooled under random effects model to achieve HR estimates of (1) the survival of BEV-treated versus control NSCLC patients with BM, (2) the survival of BEV-treated NSCLC patients with BM versus without BM, and (3) the incidence versus no incidence of BM during the study in patients who were without BM at study start.

A meta-analysis of the odds ratios (ORs) was performed to determine the significance of difference in the DCR and ORR between the BEV and control treatments in the NSCLC patients with BM using binomial data reported by the individual studies. In a separate meta-analysis, the median PFS and OS rates reported by the individual studies were pooled under random effects model by subgrouping the patients with and without BM.

The meta-analyses of the proportions with Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation were performed to achieve the complete remission, partial remission, stable disease, progressive disease, ORR, DCR, 1-year OS, and the incidence of bleeding or hemorrhage in the central nervous system (CNS) rates by subgrouping the outcomes with regard to intracranial and extracranial or BM and no BM outcomes. The clinical significance of the outcomes was decided based on the overall/subgroup effect sizes and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Publication bias assessment was performed with Begg’s funnel plot asymmetry test. The statistical analyses were performed with Stata software (Stata Corporation, Texas, USA) or with the Cochrane Review Manager software.

3 Results

3.1 Characteristics of the included studies

Seventeen studies [16–32] were selected based on the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). Fifteen studies had 7,212 NSCLC patients with BM at baseline, of which 1,548 were treated with BEV in combination with one or more therapies including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, and TKIs, and 5,664 patients served as controls who were treated with one or more of the above-mentioned therapies without BEV. Two studies recruited patients without BM at baseline (806 BEV-treated and 396 control patients) and followed them for the incidence of BM through follow-up. No significant publication bias was detected by Begg’s test (P = 0.245; Figure S1).

Figure 1

A flowchart of the study screening and selection process.

Important characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table S1, and study design and treatment features are presented in Table S2. Adenocarcinoma was predominant histological subtype of NSCLC, which was found in 87% [95% CI: 81, 92] of the patients, whereas large cell carcinoma was found in 10% [95% CI: 4, 17] of the patients. Most of the patients had an Eastern Ontario Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 (93% [95% CI: 84, 98]). The percentage of smokers (current or past) was 52% [95% CI: 38, 65]. In general, the quality of the included studies was above moderate. An assessment with New Castle–Ottawa scales is presented in Table S3.

3.2 Prevention of BM incidence

In two studies that recruited NSCLC patients without BM at baseline, in comparison with chemotherapy alone, BEV treatment with chemotherapy was associated with low BM incidence in the NSCLC patients without BM at the start of study (HR: 0.30 [95% CI: 0.14, 0.46]; Figure 2).

Figure 2

A forest graph showing the pooled HRs (effect size and 95% CI) regarding the incidence of new BM or survival to show BEV efficacy in preventing BM and survival outcomes.

3.3 Response rates

In a pooled analysis, the overall DCR in the NSCLC patients with BM was 91% [95% CI: 85, 95]. However, the intracranial DCR was higher (94% [95% CI: 87, 98] than the extracranial DCR (86% [95% CI: 74, 96]) (Figure 3). In the NSCLC patients with BM, the ORR and DCR of the BEV-treated regimen were significantly better than those of the control treatments (OR: 2.03 [1.28, 3.20]; P = 0.002 for the ORR; and OR: 2.87 [1.32, 6.23]; P = 0.008 for the DCR; Figure 4). Correspondingly, the intracranial versus extracranial response rates of BEV-treated NSCLC patients with BM were 6% [95% CI: 0, 17] versus 0% [95% CI: 0, 4] for complete remission, 42% [95% CI: 33, 51] versus 47% [95% CI: 26, 68] for partial remission, 35% [95% CI: 26, 44] versus 28% [95% CI: 17, 40] for stable disease, and 5% [95% CI: 0, 13] versus 12% [95% CI: 3, 26] for progressive disease (Figures S2–S5).

Figure 3

A forest graph showing the pooled DCRs of the BEV-treated NSCLC patients with the intracranial and extracranial subgroups. Subgroup “overall” represents the DCR of studies that reported DCR rates without distinguishing intracranial and extracranial DCRs.

Figure 4

A forest graph showing the outcomes of the meta-analysis of the ORs between the BEV-treated and control patients in the ORR and DCR. Abbreviations in study identities: CT, chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

3.4 Survival

The PFS of the BEV-treated NSCLC patients with and without BM was 7.10 months [95% CI: 6.17, 8.03] and 7.37 months [95% CI: 6.30, 8.43], respectively, whereas the intracranial PFS of the BEV-treated NSCLC patients with BM was 7.98 months [95% CI: 5.95, 10.0] (Figure 5). The OS of the BEV-treated NSCLC patients with and without BM was 13.49 months [95% CI: 11.35, 15.62] and 12.49 months [95% CI: 10.22, 14.76], respectively (Figure S6). The 1-year OS in the NSCLC patients with BM was 66% [95% CI: 56, 74] (Figure S7). The pooled analyses of HRs reported by the individual studies indicated that the BEV treatment was associated with better survival in comparison with the control treatments in the NSCLC patients with BM (HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.70]). Moreover, the BEV treatment was also associated with better survival in NSCLC patients with BM in comparison with NSCLC patients without BM (HR: 0.58 [95% CI: 0.38, 0.78]; Figure 2).

Figure 5

A forest graph showing the pooled overall and subgroup PFS rates of BEV-treated patients.

3.5 CNS bleeding

A meta-analysis of the studies that reported bleeding/hemorrhage in the CNS estimated the incidence at 1% [0, 3] with the BEV treatment as combinational regimen in the NSCLC patients with BM (Figure S8).

4 Discussion

This meta-analysis found that BEV treatment was associated with better efficacy in NSCLC patients with BM in comparison with control therapies; BEV efficacy was also better in patients with BM than in patients without BM; and BEV has preventive potentials for new BM incidence during the study follow-up. The incidence of intracranial hemorrhage was low (1%) in this population of NSCLC patients.

BM is one of the common complications of advanced NSCLC as more than 50% of NSCLC patients eventually develop BM [33]. BEV obstructs the VEGF pathway and has been shown to inhibit the growth of tumor cells by promoting tumor vascular degradation and normalizing existing tumor blood vessels [34,35]. Clinically, BEV-based treatments have become new therapeutic options for NSCLC patients with BM. However, only a few prospective studies have been made on BM from NSCLC, and debate continues about whether patients with BM can benefit from a BEV-based therapy.

The results of this meta-analysis show that as a first-line or maintenance therapy, BEV reduced the risk of a new incidence of BM from NSCLC by approximately 70% compared with chemotherapy or placebo. Blood circulation is a major path for tumor metastasis. As a VEGF inhibitor, BEV inhibits the growth of human tumor xenografts [36,37] and normalizes tumor blood vessels [35]. Therefore, we speculate that the possible mechanism of action of BEV is to prevent tumor cells from entering the blood vessels, which then reduces the incidence of BM.

BEV may normalize tumor blood vessels, which may result in a more efficient delivery and action of chemotherapies [35]. Pan et al. have reported that stereotactic radiotherapy combined with BEV to treat BM from pulmonary adenocarcinoma can achieve higher near-term tumor remission and perilesional edema control rates [24]. Furthermore, a study on mice showed that BEV not only inhibited angiogenesis but also enhanced the cytotoxicity of cisplatin and promoted apoptosis of tumor cells as a chemosensitizer [38]. It has also been found that low-dose BEV can also be used to treat brain edema due to radiotherapy [39].

Generally, the side effects of BEV therapy include hemorrhage/bleeding, wound healing complications, gastrointestinal perforation, arterial thromboembolism, congestive heart failure, hypertension, proteinuria/nephrotic syndrome, infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions, and reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome [40,41]. A meta-analysis of eight studies found that BEV treatment was not associated with a significant increase in intracerebral hemorrhage in cancer patients with BM [13]. In this study, the CNS bleeding rate with BEV treatment in NSCLC patients was 1%, which suggests that the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage is low with BEV treatment.

However, bleeding potential of BEV should not be overlooked altogether, as some studies have shown considerable bleeding events with BEV treatment. In a phase IV trial (SAiL) of the 2,212 non-squamous NSCLC patients treated with BEV, 38.2% had a bleeding event, of which 87% were resolved but 10% led to BEV discontinuation. The incidence of grade ≥3 pulmonary hemorrhage and intracerebral hemorrhage was 0.7% and 0.1%, respectively, in a previous study [42]. A meta-analysis also found that BEV treatment was associated with an increased risk of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage (relative risk 5.65 [95% CI: 1.26, 25.26]) in patients with lung cancer [12].

The meta-analysis of several indices reflecting the efficacy of BEV in the NSCLC patients with BM is the major strength of this study. Moreover, a reliable estimate of the incidence of CNS hemorrhage in the NSCLC patients with BM is also reported for the first time herein. However, some limitations of this study should also be noted: (1) no studies could be found from the literature to evaluate BEV versus other therapies with regard to survival, so a comparative account with regard to survival could not be made; (2) because of the observational design of the included studies, several types of biases could affect the outcomes; (3) in the pooled analyses, the subgroups were not balanced and hence ad hoc outcomes depending on future studies should be considered; and (4) the course of treatment was not uniform in all the studies. Therefore, a large, multicenter, randomized controlled trial is needed to verify further the safety and efficacy of BEV in the treatment of NSCLC patients with BM.

5 Conclusion

Our meta-analysis has shown that in NSCLC patients with BM, the ORR and DCR were significantly better with BEV-treatment than with contemporary therapies. The DCR and PFS of the BEV-treated patients were better for intracranial than for extracranial disease. Based on data from two studies, it was found that BEV reduced the risk of new BM incidence by 70%, which shows that it may have preventive potentials for BM. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage with BEV treatment was low.

Abbreviations

AEs: adverse events
BEV: bevacizumab
BM: brain metastasis
CNS: central nervous system
CNKI: China National Knowledge Infrastructure
DCR: disease control rate
HR: hazard ratio
NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer
OR: odds ratio
ORR: objective response rate
OS: overall survival
PFS: progression-free survival
TKI: tyrosine kinase inhibitor
VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor

tel: +86-13582028391, fax: +86-311-86095588

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the Scientific Research Program of Hebei Provincial Health Department (20150368).

Conflict of interest: All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

[1] Ettinger DS, Akerley W, Borghaei H, Chang AC, Cheney RT, Chirieac LR, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer, version 2.2013. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(6):645–53.10.6004/jnccn.2013.0084Search in Google Scholar

[2] Kitagawa C, Mori M, Ichiki M, Sukoh N, Kada A, Saito AM, et al. Gefitinib plus bevacizumab vs. gefitinib alone for EGFR mutant non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. In Vivo. 2019;33(2):477–82.10.21873/invivo.11498Search in Google Scholar

[3] Molina JR, Yang P, Cassivi SD, Schild SE, Adjei AA. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(5):584–94.10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60735-0Search in Google Scholar

[4] Paesmans M, Sculier JP, Libert P, Bureau G, Dabouis G, Thiriaux J, et al. Prognostic factors for survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: univariate and multivariate analyses including recursive partitioning and amalgamation algorithms in 1,052 patients. The European Lung Cancer Working Party. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(5):1221–30.10.1200/JCO.1995.13.5.1221Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Kwas H, Guermazi E, Khattab A, Hrizi C, Zendah I, Ghedira H. Prognostic factors of advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Rev Pneumol Clin. 2017;73(4):180–7.10.1016/j.pneumo.2017.05.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Waqar SN, Samson PP, Robinson CG, Bradley J, Devarakonda S, Du L, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer with brain metastasis at presentation. Clin lung cancer. 2018;19(4):e373–9. 10.1016/j.cllc.2018.01.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[7] Carolan H, Sun AY, Bezjak A, Yi QL, Payne D, Kane G, et al. Does the incidence and outcome of brain metastases in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer justify prophylactic cranial irradiation or early detection? Lung Cancer. 2005;49(1):109–15.10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.12.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Arrieta O, Villarreal-Garza C, Zamora J, Blake-Cerda M, de la Mata MD, Zavala DG, et al. Long-term survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and synchronous brain metastasis treated with whole-brain radiotherapy and thoracic chemoradiation. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:166. 10.1186/1748-717X-6-166Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] Won YK, Lee JY, Kang YN, Jang JS, Kang JH, Jung SL. Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2015;33(3):207–16.10.3857/roj.2015.33.3.207Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Ohe Y, Imamura F, Nogami N, Okamoto I, Kurata T, Kato T, et al. Osimertinib versus standard-of-care EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for EGFRm advanced NSCLC: FLAURA Japanese subset. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019;49(1):29–36.10.1093/jjco/hyy179Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[11] Ulahannan D, Khalifa J, Faivre-Finn C, Lee SM. Emerging treatment paradigms for brain metastasis in non-small-cell lung cancer: an overview of the current landscape and challenges ahead. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:2923–31.10.1093/annonc/mdx481Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Amit L, Ben-Aharon I, Vidal L, Leibovici L, Stemmer S. The impact of Bevacizumab (Avastin) on survival in metastatic solid tumors-a meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51780. 10.1371/journal.pone.0051780.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[13] Yang L, Chen CJ, Guo XL, Wu X, Lv B, Wang H, et al. Bevacizumab and risk of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with brain metastases: a meta-analysis. J Neurooncol. 2018;137(1):49–56.10.1007/s11060-017-2693-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[14] Lima AB, Macedo LT, Sasse AD. Addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e22681. 10.1371/journal.pone.0022681.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] Soria JC, Mauguen A, Reck M, Sandler AB, Saijo N, Johnson DH, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, phase II/III trials adding bevacizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(1):20–30.10.1093/annonc/mds590Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Ascha MS, Wang JF, Kumthekar P, Sloan AE, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. Bevacizumab for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer patients with synchronous brain metastases. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):17792. 10.1038/s41598-019-54513-3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[17] Bennouna J, Falchero L, Schott R, Bonnetain F, Coudert M, Ben Hadj Yahia B, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases: a French Cohort Study (EOLE). Oncology. 2018;94(1):55–64.10.1159/000480702Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Besse B, Le Moulec S, Mazières J, Senellart H, Barlesi F, Chouaid C, et al. Bevacizumab in patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer and asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases (BRAIN): a nonrandomized, phase II Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(8):1896–903.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2082Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] De Braganca KC, Janjigian YY, Azzoli CG, Kris MG, Pietanza MC, Nolan CP, et al. Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in active brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. J Neurooncol. 2010;100(3):443–7.10.1007/s11060-010-0200-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[20] Fu Y, Hu J, Du N, Jiao S, Li F, Li X, et al. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for preventing brain metastasis derived from advanced lung cancer. J Chemother. 2016;28(3):218–24.10.1179/1973947815Y.0000000045Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Ilhan-Mutlu A, Osswald M, Liao Y, Gömmel M, Reck M, Miles D, et al. Bevacizumab prevents brain metastases formation in lung adenocarcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(4):702–10.10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0582Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Kuse N, Yoshimori K, Ueyama M, Hirukawa I, Nakagawa Y, Aoki M, et al. Safety of bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases. Ann Cancer Res Ther. 2012;20:47–51.10.4993/acrt.20.47Search in Google Scholar

[23] Lunacsek OE, Ravelo A, Coutinho AD, Hazard SJ, Green MR, Willey J, et al. First-line treatment with bevacizumab and platinum doublet combination in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study in the US oncology community practices. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016;3(3):333–43.10.1007/s40801-016-0090-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[24] Pan M, Li Y, Qiu S, Guo Y, Chen L, Shao X, et al. Efficacy and safety of stereotactic radiotherapy combined with bevacizumab for brain metastases of lung adenocarcinoma. Chin J Radiation Oncol. 2017;26:880–3.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Socinski MA, Langer CJ, Huang JE, Kolb MM, Compton P, Wang L, et al. Safety of bevacizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(31):5255–61.10.1200/JCO.2009.22.0616Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Stefanou D, Stamatopoulou S, Sakellaropoulou A, Akakios G, Gkiaouraki M, Gkeka D, et al. Bevacizumab, pemetrexed and carboplatin in first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer patients: focus on patients with brain metastases. Oncol Lett. 2016;12(6):4635–42.10.3892/ol.2016.5268Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[27] Tang N, Guo J, Zhang Q, Wang Y, Wang Z. Greater efficacy of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab compared to chemo- and targeted therapy alone on non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastasis. Oncotarget. 2016;7:3635–44.10.18632/oncotarget.6184Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[28] Tian Y, Zhai X, Tian H, Jing W, Zhu H, Yu J. Bevacizumab in combination with pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved the clinical outcome of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma NSCLC and brain metastases. Cancer Manage Res. 2019;11:10083–92.10.2147/CMAR.S222910Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[29] Wang Z, Yang JJ, Tu HY, Yan HH, Wu YL. Retrospective study on bevacizumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020;25:267–73. 10.1007/s10147-019-01552-5.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Yang RF, Yu B, Zhang RQ, Wang XH, Li C, Wang P, et al. Bevacizumab and gefitinib enhanced whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastases due to non-small-cell lung cancer. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2017;51(1):e6073. 10.1590/1414-431X20176073.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[31] Zhan Q, Miao F, Huang R, Zhou X, Ge M, Liang X. Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in symptomatic brain metastases from lung adenocarcinoma: a retrospective analysis. J Thoracic Dis. 2019;11(11):4725–34.10.21037/jtd.2019.10.49Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[32] Zustovich F, Ferro A, Lombardi G, Farina P, Zagonel V. Bevacizumab-based therapy for patients with brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer: preliminary results. Chemotherapy. 2014;60:294–99.10.1159/000376605Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[33] Hendriks LEL, Henon C, Auclin E, Mezquita L, Ferrara R, Audigier-Valette C, et al. Outcome of patients with non-small cell lung cancer and brain metastases treated with checkpoint inhibitors. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(7):1244–54.10.1016/j.jtho.2019.02.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[34] Willett CG, Boucher Y, di Tomaso E, Duda DG, Munn LL, Tong RT, et al. Direct evidence that the VEGF-specific antibody bevacizumab has antivascular effects in human rectal cancer. Nat Med. 2004;10(2):145–7.10.1038/nm988Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[35] Jain RK. Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy. Science. 2005;307:58–62.10.1126/science.1104819Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] Ferrara N, Gerber HP, LeCouter J. The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nature Med. 2003;9:669–76.10.1038/nm0603-669Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Borgstrom P, Gold DP, Hillan KJ, Ferrara N. Importance of VEGF for breast cancer angiogenesis in vivo implications from intravital microscopy of combination treatments with an anti-VEGF neutralizing monoclonal antibody and doxorubicin. Anticancer Res. 1999;19:4203–14.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Wang Y, Dong L, Bi Q, Ge X, Zhang X, Wu D, et al. Beyond antiangiogenesis: intratumorally injected bevacizumab plays a cisplatin-sensitizing role in squamous cell carcinomas in mice. Chemotherapy. 2011;57(3):244–52.10.1159/000326485Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] Yano H, Nakayama N, Morimitsu K, Futamura M, Ohe N, Miwa K, et al. Changes in protein level in the cerebrospinal fluid of a patient with cerebral radiation necrosis treated with bevacizumab. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2014;8:153–7.10.4137/CMO.S19823Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[40] Gressett SM, Shah SR. Intricacies of bevacizumab-induced toxicities and their management. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:490–501.10.1345/aph.1L426Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] Shamloo BK, Chhabra P, Freedman AN, Potosky A, Malin J, Weiss Smith S. Novel adverse events of bevacizumab in the US FDA adverse event reporting system database: a disproportionality analysis. Drug Saf. 2012;35(6):507–18.10.2165/11597600-000000000-00000Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[42] Dansin E, Cinieri S, Garrido P, Griesinger F, Isla D, Koehler M, et al. MO19390 (SAiL): bleeding events in a phase IV study of first-line bevacizumab with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Lung Cancer. 2012;76(3):373–9.10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.11.020Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2020-01-02

Revised: 2020-05-21

Accepted: 2020-05-22

Published Online: 2020-07-01

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Supplementary material

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2020-0192

Keywords for this article

bevacizumab; NSCLC; brain metastasis; efficacy; safety

Creative Commons

BY 4.0

Bevacizumab for non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastasis: A meta-analysis

Article

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 Methods

2.1 Search strategy

2.2 Eligibility criteria

2.3 Data extraction and study quality assessment

2.4 Statistical analyses

3 Results

3.1 Characteristics of the included studies

3.2 Prevention of BM incidence

3.3 Response rates

3.4 Survival

3.5 CNS bleeding

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Abbreviations

Acknowledgments

References

Supplementary Material

Articles in the same Issue

Articles in the same Issue

Articles in the same Issue