Efficacy of Vorasidenib for Patients with IDH-Mutant Glioma Previously Treated with Ivosidenib

Clicks: 1
ID: 316992
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #29 of 41 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Practice

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH-1) inhibitor ivosidenib and dual-IDH1/2 inhibitor vorasidenib have demonstrated clinical activity in treatment of IDH-mutant gliomas. We evaluated 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.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164400016 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sydney E Schultz, Jason N. Barreto, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Samantha J Caron, Bryan J. Neth, Michael W. Ruff, Joon H Uhm, Nishika Karbhari, Daniel H Lachance, Sani H Kizilbash, Jian L Campian, Susan M Geyer, Ugur Sener
Journal Neuro-Oncology Practice
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/nop/npag057
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npag057
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.