Evidence Hub

Phase II propensity-matched controlled trial evaluating metformin as an adjunct to neo-adjuvant, concomitant, and adjuvant temozolomide and hypofractionated-accelerated radiotherapy (M-HART) in glioblastoma patients (NCT02780024)

G. Shenouda, Roberto Diaz, Bassam Abdulkarim, K. Petrecca, Scott P. Owen, V. Panet-Raymond, A. Mohammad, M. Barrera et al.

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2025

50 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

2064

Background:

Phase II, propensity-matched trial, to assess feasibility and toxicity of adding Metformin (MTF) to neo-adjuvant, concomitant and adjuvant Temozolomide (TMZ) and hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy (M-HART), for patients with Glioblastoma (GBM). We compared median survival time (MST), and progression-free-survival (PFS) of M-HART versus a contemporaneous cohort of propensity-score matched controls (PSMC) who received standard of care (SOC).

Methods:

Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years with newly diagnosed GBM, ECOG score ≤ 2, with known MGMT status, gross total or partial resection, and residual surgical cavity > 15 mm from brainstem, or optic apparatus. Four weeks from surgery, M-HART patients started 2 weeks of neo-adjuvant MTF/TMZ followed by concomitant MTF/TMZ + HART 60 Gy/20 daily fractions, and 6 cycles of adjuvant MTF/TMZ. The PSMC patients received Stupp’s regimen. We used a nearest neighbor matching with a caliper width of 0.2 SD and compared patients’ characteristics using chi-square test (Table). Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression model, with probability of M-HART treatment as dependent variable.

Results:

From April 2015 to November 2020, 50 patients participated in the M-HART trial and matched with 50 PSMC cohort treated during the same period, with a median follow up of 24.1 (M-HART) vs 17.6 months PSMC, respectively. M-HART patients had significantly longer MST of 24.1 (95% CI, 15.2- 30.3) vs. 17.7 months for PSMC…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 50 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free