Table 1.

Studies assessing biomarkers in relation to the activity or efficacy of BEV

Ref.	Type	Agents	Biomarkers	Main clinical outcome
Sandmann et al23	Newly diagnosed GBM	BEV arm, n = 171; Placebo arm, n = 178	IDH1 wild‐type proneural GBM	mOS 17.1 mo vs 12.8 mo (P = 0.002)
Erdem‐Eraslan et al27	rGBM	BEV alone CCNU alone BEV + CCNU	Gravendeel IGS‐18	mPFS 1.4 mo, 2.9 m vs 4.2 mo (P = 0.0004) mOS 7.9 mo, 8.3 mo vs 11.9 mo (P = 0.09)
Chinot et al30	Newly diagnosed GBM	BEV arm n = 283; Placebo arm n = 294	MMP9	mOS 18.8 mo vs 13.6 mo (P = 0.0009) mPFS 11.7 mo vs 5.9 mo (P < 0.0001)
Tabouret et al29	HGG	BEV + irinotecan	MMP2	mOS 11.8 mo vs 5.9 mo (P = 0.009) mPFS 7.1 mo vs 4.2 mo (P = 0.009)
Hayes et al32	GBM	BEV	MicroRNA profiles	mOS 21 mo vs 15 mo (P = 0.026)
Bertaut et al36	GBM	BEV + irinotecan (before classical RT + CT) Classical RT + CT	Blood baseline neutrophil count	mOS 17.3 mo vs 8.4 mo (P < 0.0001)
Urup et al38	rGBM	BEV + irinotecan	AGT	PFS (2‐fold decrease: HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59‐0.94; P = 0.01) OS (2‐fold decrease: HR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54‐0.94; P = 0.005),
Urup et al38	rGBM	BEV + irinotecan	HLA‐II	Not significant
Tobias et al39	rGBM	BEV therapy	PTEN	mOS 7 mo vs 5 mo (P = 0.0117) mPFS 5.25 mo vs 4 mo (P = 0.009)
Zhong et al40	rGBM	BEV therapy (BEV alone, BEV + TMZ or BEV + irinotecan)	BEV‐induced hypertension	mOS 11.7 mo vs 4.9 mo (P < 0.001) mPFS 6.7 mo vs 2.5 mo (P < 0.001)