Back to Authors

Mead-Harvey, Carolyn

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic in Arizona

Citations 1

Efficacy of vorasidenib for patients with IDH-mutant glioma previously treated with ivosidenib
Schultz, Sydney E, Barreto, Jason N. , Mead-Harvey, Carolyn, Caron, Samantha J, Ruff, Michael W. , Uhm, Joon H, Lachance, Daniel H, Kizilbash, Sani H, Campian, Jian L, Geyer, Susan M, Sener, Ugur, Schultz, Sydney , Lachance, Daniel H , Schultz, Sydney E , Lachance, Daniel , Mead‐Harvey, Carolyn , Caron, Samantha, Neth, Bryan J. , Uhm, Joon H. , Karbhari, Nishika , Lachance, Daniel Honore , Kizilbash, Sani H. , Campian, Jian , Geyer, Susan M. , Sener, Uğur

Neuro-Oncology Practice | June 10, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1093/nop/npag057 Get It

Abstract Background Isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH-1) inhibitor ivosidenib and dual-IDH1/2 inhibitor vorasidenib have demonstrated clinical activity in the treatment of IDH-mutant gliomas. We evaluated the efficacy of vorasidenib in patients with prior exposure to ivosidenib. Methods Retrospective review of patients with IDH-mutant glioma treated with vorasidenib who had prior treatment with ivosidenib. Previous treatments, radiographic response, and adverse events were collected and analyzed descriptively. Results Twenty-nine patients (median age 42, 34% female) were evaluated. Tumor types included IDH-mutant astrocytoma (grade 2 n = 9, 31%; grade 3 n = 3, 10%; grade 4 n = 3, 10%) and oligodendroglioma (grade 2 n = 10, 34%; grade 3 n = 4, 14%). Treatments received prior to ivosidenib included surgical resection (n = 23, 79%), radiation (n = 16, 55%), temozolomide (n = 15, 52%), procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine (PCV, n = 2, 7%), bevacizumab (n = 3, 10%), lomustine (n = 2, 7%), and pembrolizumab (n = 1, 3%). Four patients received additional treatment in between ivosidenib and vorasidenib treatment. Ten of 16 (63%) patients who experienced disease progression on ivosidenib achieved stable disease and remain on vorasidenib, while 6 (37%) had continued progression. Eleven patients with stable disease on ivosidenib transitioned to vorasidenib following FDA approval and remained without progression. Two patients who transitioned to vorasidenib due to ivosidenib-related adverse effects (diarrhea and fatigue) experienced symptom resolution and maintained disease stability. Conclusions Vorasidenib demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with IDH-mutant gliomas previously treated with ivosidenib. Notably, stable patients who transitioned maintained disease stability, while some of those with progressive disease achieved stabilization with vorasidenib. These findings support vorasidenib as a viable therapeutic option following ivosidenib exposure.