Schultz, Sydney E.

Abstract Purpose Bevacizumab is an effective treatment for radiation necrosis; dose dependent radiographic and edema response data are lacking. Methods Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with primary central nervous system tumors or brain metastases who received bevacizumab for radiation necrosis between June 2021 and July 2024. Patients were grouped by bevacizumab dose (7.5 mg/kg vs 10 mg/kg administered every three weeks). Primary outcome was edema response, assessed by a blinded neuro-oncologist. Secondary outcomes included contrast enhancing disease response, clinical response, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing for recurrent radiation necrosis. Analyses were performed with and without adjustment for tumor type. Results 104 patients were included (7.5 mg/kg, n = 53; 10 mg/kg, n = 51). Edema response differed between dosing groups in unadjusted analyses (p = 0.032), favoring the 7.5 mg/kg cohort; however, this association was attenuated after adjustment for tumor type. Contrast enhancing disease response did not differ between groups in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (p = 0.43). Clinical response was higher in the 7.5 mg/kg group (65.2% vs 37.8%, p = 0.013). Tumor type differed significantly between cohorts (p < 0.001), with more primary CNS tumors in the 10 mg/kg group. Rates of adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing were similar. Conclusions While lower-dose bevacizumab was associated with greater edema reduction in unadjusted analyses, this effect was attenuated after accounting for tumor type. Importantly, 7.5 mg/kg dosing appeared sufficient for achieving edema control and contrast enhancing disease response. These findings support an individualized approach to bevacizumab dosing in radiation necrosis and highlight the need for prospective, tumor-stratified studies.

Abstract Background Vorasidenib is Food and Drug Administration‐approved for treatment of grade 2 isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant gliomas and has demonstrated a benefit in progression‐free survival compared to a placebo. This study assessed the cost‐effectiveness of this treatment strategy compared to standard treatment: observation or chemoradiation (CRT). Methods The authors used an integrated Markov model to compare quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) gained and cost‐effectiveness of patients with IDH‐mutated low‐grade glioma (LGG) treated with vorasidenib, observation, or CRT. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. Treatment is considered cost‐effective if it meets the commonly accepted willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Results Based on model parameters, vorasidenib demonstrated an ICER of $356,756 per QALY when compared to CRT. When compared to observation, vorasidenib demonstrated an improved ICER of $215,191 per QALY. On one‐way sensitivity analysis compared to observation, median cost of vorasidenib and median overall survival were most likely to affect ICER with only marginal changes on analysis of other model factors. For ICER to become ≤$100,000 compared to observation, the cost of vorasidenib would need to drop to below $14,072 monthly or have a median survival gain of at least 11.9 years. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that vorasidenib was favored in none of 5000 Monte Carlo iterations. Conclusion Using the best available data, the current price of vorasidenib does not meet commonly accepted cost‐effectiveness thresholds in treatment of IDH‐mutated LGGs.