Thomas, Alissa A.

Abstract BACKGROUND Patients with meningiomas that have progressed after surgery and/or radiation have limited treatments. Loss of NF2 and CDKN2A/B are common in higher-grade meningiomas and promote meningioma progression. We evaluated the efficacy of abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor, as part of Alliance A071401, a genomically-driven phase II trial in recurrent or progressive meningiomas. METHODS Eligible patients (pts) with grade 2/3 tumors and NF2 mutations or CDK pathway alterations were treated with abemaciclib 200 mg orally twice daily. Two co-primary endpoints were used: progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6) and response rate (RR); the trial would be declared positive if either endpoint was met. Twenty-four evaluable pts provided ≥85% power to detect a PFS6 ≥41.5% (vs. null 15%; alpha=0.02), and ≥89% power to detect RR ≥20% (vs. null 2.5%; alpha=0.021). RESULTS Of 83 pts screened while the abemaciclib arm was open between September 15, 2021 and October 3, 2022, 36 eligible pts received abemaciclib. The observed PFS6 rate in the first 24 evaluable pts was 54% (95% CI 33-75%), thus the study met PFS6 endpoint. Of all 35 evaluable pts, median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 3.6-17.1 months), estimated 6-month PFS was 55% (95% CI 40-75%) and estimated 6-month OS was 88% (95% CI 77-100%). No objective responses were observed. Of the 36 pts who started treatment, two had a grade 4 adverse event at least possibly related to treatment which included ALT elevation(1), AST elevation(1) and vomiting(1). Patients with NF2 alterations (n=24) had favorable PFS6 outcomes (58%, 95% CI 37-78%) compared to those with CDK (n=4, 25%, 95% CI 1-81%) and CDK+NF2 alterations (n=7, 29% 95% CI 4-71%), (Fisher’s Exact p=0.036). CONCLUSIONS Abemaciclib was well-tolerated and resulted in improved PFS6, meeting the trial’s co-primary endpoint. Abemaciclib warrants further investigation for the treatment of patients with progressive meningiomas.

Abstract BACKGROUND Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers and clinicians led us to conduct a survey identifying opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. METHODS Summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates (European Association of Neuro-Oncology, Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology, Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career success metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. RESULTS The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40-49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology community. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

Abstract Background Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers, and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. Methods In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic, and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. Results The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40–49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. Conclusions The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

AbstractBackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24–May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.

Abstract To assess the impact of the pandemic on the field, we performed an international web-based survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents from April 24 through May 17. Of 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were in the US, and 314 (55%) were international. 80.4% were affiliated with academic institutions. 94% respondents reported changes in clinical practice; 95% reported conversion to telemedicine for at least some appointments. However, almost 10% practitioners felt the need to see patients in person specifically because of billing concerns and perceived institutional pressure. Over 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. 67% practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial: 53% suspended phase II and 62% suspended phase III trial enrollment. 71% clinicians feared for their or their families’ safety, specifically because of their clinical duties. 20% percent said they did not have enough PPE to work safely; about the same percentage were unhappy with their institutions’ response to the pandemic. 43% believed the pandemic would negatively affect their academic career, and 52% fellowship program directors were worried about losing funding for their training programs. While 69% respondents reported increased stress, 44% were offered no psychosocial support. 37% had their salary reduced. 36% researchers had to temporarily close their laboratories. In contrast, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient and family satisfaction, quality of communication, and use of technology to deliver care and interactions with other practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has altered standard treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options for patients. In some cases, clinicians felt institutional pressure to continue conducting billable in-person visits when telemedicine visits would have sufficed. A lack of institutional support created anxiety among clinicians and researchers. We make specific recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward.