Open Access

REVIEW

Molecularly Targeted Drugs Plus Radiotherapy and Temozolomide Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Jiahao Su^*, Meiqin Cai^*, Wensheng Li^*, Bo Hou^†, Haiyong He^†, Cong Ling^†,Tengchao Huang^†, Huijiao Liu^†, Ying Guo^*

* Department of Neurosurgery, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
† Department of Neurology, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

Oncology Research 2016, 24(2), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.3727/096504016X14612603423511

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor that nearly always results in a bad prognosis. Temozolomide plus radiotherapy (TEM+RAD) is the most common treatment for newly diagnosed GBM. With the development of molecularly targeted drugs, several clinical trials were reported; however, the efficacy of the treatment remains controversial. So we attempted to measure the dose of the molecularly targeted drug that could improve the prognosis of those patients. The appropriate electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis was performed after determining which studies met the inclusion criteria. Six randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for this meta-analysis, comprising 2,637 GBM patients. The benefit of overall survival (OS) was hazard ratio (HZ), 0.936 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.852–1.028]. The benefit with respect to progression-free survival (PFS) rate was HZ of 0.796 (95% CI, 0.701–0.903). OS benefit of cilengitide was HZ of 0.792 (95% CI, 0.642–0.977). The adverse effects higher than grade 3 were 57.7% in the experimental group and 44.1% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.679; 95% CI, 1.434–1.967). The addition of molecularly targeted drugs to TEM+RAD did not improve the OS of patients with GBM; however, it did improve PFS in patients treated by cilengitide who could not get improvement in OS. The rate of adverse effects was higher in the experimental group than in the placebo group.

---

Keywords

---