Abstract:Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity. To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence. We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non‐randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre‐designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta‐analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random‐effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non‐randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re‐operation, re‐irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta‐analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression‐free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re‐irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re‐challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality‐of‐life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression‐free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high‐certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate‐certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low‐certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low‐certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low‐certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux‐M (ABT414) : For OS, low‐certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low‐certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low‐certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI) : Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate‐certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re‐operation versus no re‐operation, with or without re‐irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re‐operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidate -Abstract Truncated-

Reirradiation with radiosurgery or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy in association with regorafenib in recurrent glioblastoma

Safety and Efficacy of Anlotinib Hydrochloride Plus Temozolomide in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma.

A phase II study of anlotinib combined with temozolomide in the treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Safety of Inhomogeneous Dose Distribution IMRT for High-Grade Glioma Reirradiation: A Prospective Phase I/II Trial (GLIORAD TRIAL)

REGOMA-OSS: a large, Italian, multicenter, prospective, observational study evaluating the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma

Re-irradiation treatment regimens for patients with recurrent glioma - Evaluation of the optimal dose and best concurrent therapy

NRG Oncology/RTOG1205: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Concurrent Bevacizumab and Reirradiation Versus Bevacizumab Alone as Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma

Re-irradiation for recurrent glioblastoma (GBM): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Multi-institutional study of reirradiation for recurrent high grade glioma.

Regorafenib and glioblastoma: a literature review of preclinical studies, molecular mechanisms and clinical effectiveness

Re-irradiation plus pembrolizumab: Phase II study for recurrent glioblastoma patients

Current status and recent advances in reirradiation of glioblastoma

Ctni-28. In Vitro Glioma Stemlike Cell-Based Screening To Predict Drug Sensitivity In Recurrentglioblastoma: A Clinical Series And Systematic Literature Review

Adjuvant re-irradiation vs. no early re-irradiation of resected recurrent glioblastoma: pooled comparative cohort analysis from two tertiary centers

The Patterns of Failure and Prognostic Impact of Tumor Location in Patients Undergoing Reirradiation for Glioblastoma

Comparison between Reirradiation by Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Combination with Temozolomide for Treatment of Recurrent High Grade Glioma

PL02.3.A Survival and T-cell tumor reactivity in patients treated with nivolumab and bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma in the clinical trial CA209-9UP

Efficacy and Low Toxicity of Normo-Fractionated Re-Irradiation with Combined Chemotherapy for Recurrent Glioblastoma—An Analysis of Treatment Response and Failure

Radt-17. Fractionated Reirradiation Of Recurrent Idh Wildtype Glioblastoma: Higher Reirradiaiton Dose And Safety

Hypofractionated Re-irradiation after Maximal Surgical Resection for Recurrent Glioblastoma: Therapeutic Adequacy and Its Prognosticators of Survival

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.