Back

Neoadjuvant Bevacizumab in Newly Diagnosed, Surgically Resectable Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survival and Functional Outcomes

Tabasi Kakhki, F.; Sadat Hosseini Khajouei, F.; Valinejad qanati, A.; Babazadeh, M.; Tavanaei, R.; Hajimohammadebrahim-Ketabforoush, M.; Oveisi, S.; Oraee-Yazdani, S.; Zali, A.; Fahim, F.

2025-10-05 oncology
10.1101/2025.10.03.25337250 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGlioblastoma (GBM) remains one of the most aggressive primary brain tumors, with limited survival despite maximal safe resection and chemoradiotherapy. Neoadjuvant bevacizumab (BEV) has been proposed to reduce peritumoral edema, improve functional status, and potentially enhance progression-free survival (PFS). However, its survival benefit in newly diagnosed, surgically resectable GBM remains unclear. ObjectiveTo systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the evidence on neoadjuvant BEV in adult patients with newly diagnosed, resectable GBM, focusing on survival and functional outcomes. MethodsFollowing PROSPERO registration (CRD420251078761), we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to July 20, 2025, without language restrictions. Eligible randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and cohort studies compared neoadjuvant BEV (alone or with other therapies) to standard care without BEV. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and PFS; secondary outcomes included Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), steroid use, radiological response, and biomarkers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. ResultsThirteen studies (2 RCTs, 7 non-randomized trials, 4 cohorts) met the inclusion criteria; four (n=751) were eligible for meta-analysis. Pooled HR for OS was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.42-1.25, p=0.246) and for PFS was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.42-1.22, p=0.220), both with low heterogeneity (I2=0%). Functional outcomes suggested improved KPS and reduced steroid dependence, but certainty was low. Biomarker and radiological findings were inconsistent. ConclusionsNeoadjuvant BEV in resectable GBM does not significantly improve OS or PFS but may offer symptomatic and functional benefits. Current evidence is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous protocols, and low methodological quality. Well-designed multicenter RCTs are warranted.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
35.8%
2
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
3
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.1%
5
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
7
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.6%
8
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
2.0%
10
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
11
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
12
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
13
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
15
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
17
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.8%
18
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
Interface Focus
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
20
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
21
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
25
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
26
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
27
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
28
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
29
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%