Khasraw, Mustafa

Abstract Background Treatment options for unresectable new and recurrent glioblastoma remain limited. Laser ablation has demonstrated safety as a surgical approach to treating primary brain tumors. The LAANTERN prospective multicenter registry (NCT02392078) data were analyzed to determine clinical outcomes for patients with new and recurrent IDH wild-type glioblastoma. Methods Demographics, intraprocedural data, adverse events, KPS, health economics, and survival data were prospectively collected and then analyzed on IDH wild-type newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma patients who were treated with laser ablation at 14 US centers between January 2016 and May 2019. Data were monitored for accuracy. Statistical analysis included individual variable summaries, multivariable differences in survival, and median survival numbers. Results A total of 29 new and 60 recurrent IDH wild-type WHO grade 4 glioblastoma patients were treated. Positive MGMT promoter methylation status was present in 5/29 of new and 23/60 of recurrent patients. Median physician-estimated extent of ablation was 91%-99%. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.73 months (95% confidence interval: 5.16, 15.91) for newly diagnosed patients and median post-procedure survival was 8.97 months (6.94, 12.36) for recurrent patients. Median OS for newly diagnosed patients receiving post-LITT chemo/radiation was 16.14 months (6.11, not reached). Factors associated with improved survival were MGMT promoter methylation, adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 weeks, and tumor volume <3 cc. Conclusions Laser ablation is a viable option for patients with new and recurrent glioblastoma. Median OS for IDH wild-type newly diagnosed glioblastoma is comparable to outcomes observed in other tumor resection studies when those patients undergo radiation and chemotherapy following LITT.

Gliomas are the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults. Despite advances in multimodality therapy, incorporating surgery, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, tumor treating fields and supportive care, patient outcomes remain poor, especially in glioblastoma where median survival has remained static at around 15 months, for decades. Low-grade gliomas typically harbor isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations, grow more slowly and confer a better prognosis than glioblastoma. However, nearly all gliomas eventually recur and progress in a way similar to glioblastoma. One of the novel therapies being developed in this area are poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. PARP inhibitors belong to a class of drugs that target DNA damage repair pathways. This leads to synthetic lethality of cancer cells with coexisting homologous recombination deficiency. PARP inhibitors may also potentiate the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and prime the tumor microenvironment for immunotherapy. In this review, we examine the rationale and clinical evidence for PARP inhibitors in glioma and suggest therapeutic opportunities.

Abstract Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as “recruiting” or “not yet recruiting” as of February 2021.

Abstract Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for many hard-to-treat cancers but has yet to produce significant improvement in outcomes for patients with glioblastoma. This reflects the multiple and unique mechanisms of immune evasion and escape in this highly heterogeneous tumor. Glioblastoma engenders profound local and systemic immunosuppression and is remarkably effective at inducing T-cell dysfunction, posing a challenge to any immunotherapy-based approach. To overcome these mechanisms, multiple disparate modes of immune-oriented therapy will be required. However, designing trials that can evaluate these combinatorial approaches requires careful consideration. In this review, we explore the immunotherapy resistance mechanisms that have been encountered to date and how combinatorial approaches may address these. We also describe the unique aspects of trial design in both preclinical and clinical settings and consider endpoints and markers of response best suited for an intervention involving multiple agents.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel–novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel–novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel–novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design.

Abstract On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

PURPOSE The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS Two CNS guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, and an independent multidisciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The Expert Panel voted to endorse the two guidelines, and ASCO and Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines with minor alterations. RECOMMENDATIONS Key recommendations include the following: prophylactic antiepileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; and corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .