Hepel, Jaroslaw T.

PURPOSE Integrating external control data into clinical trial designs and analyses has the potential to accelerate drug development processes. We reanalyzed the three experimental arms of the Individual Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT), a randomized phase II platform trial in newly diagnosed O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02977780 ). To evaluate the validity of using external data sets, we compared treatment effect estimates based on internal INSIGhT control data and matched external control data. METHODS The three experimental arms of INSIGhT (abemaciclib [n = 72], neratinib [n = 80], and CC-115 [n = 12]) did not improve survival compared with internal controls (standard chemoradiation [n = 70]). We derived external control patient-level data from multiple real-world and clinical trial data sets. We applied propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate treatment effects with external controls. Additionally, using this glioblastoma (GBM) data collection, we specified simulation scenarios to evaluate trial designs that integrate external controls. RESULTS After matching to external controls, no survival benefit was observed for patients receiving abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34]), neratinib (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.24]), or CC-115 (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.41 to 1.88]). Simulations, together with the INSIGhT data and a collection of GBM data sets, allowed us to examine efficiencies and risks of clinical trial designs that leverage external control data. CONCLUSION The use of carefully matched external controls, to replace or augment the internal controls of INSIGhT, produced treatment effect estimates that were similar to previously published analyses. Single-arm trial designs and hybrid randomized designs incorporating propensity score–matched external control data evaluated treatment effects in the early-phase testing of experimental therapies in newly diagnosed GBM. The validity of this approach and risks of bias depended on the availability of comprehensive and accurate data on all potential confounders, in the absence of unmeasured confounding.

Importance Brain metastases are common in patients with cancer, and radiation is often used for management. Among patients with more than 4 brain metastases, the effects of stereotactic radiation targeting only individual tumors, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance, which radiates both tumors and normal brain, remain unknown. Objective To determine whether stereotactic radiation improves symptom severity and interference with daily functioning, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 United States–based centers. Eligible patients had 5 to 20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation. Enrollment occurred between April 11, 2017, and May 17, 2024 (final follow-up, March 18, 2025). Intervention Stereotactic radiation, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months postbaseline relative to baseline using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor instrument (scale, 0-10; score change range, −10 to 10; −10 = best). A clinically meaningful Δ was defined as 0.98. Results Of 196 randomized patients (mean age, 61 years; 129 [66%] female; 176 [90%] White; median number of brain metastases, 14 [IQR, 11-18]; 49 [25%] with prior neurosurgical resection), 83 (42%) completed the 6-month assessment. For the primary outcome, between baseline and postbaseline assessments through the 6-month follow-up, stereotactic radiation changed the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor score from 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, −0.32) and hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation changed the score from 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) (mean difference, −1.06 [95% CI, −1.54 to −0.58]; P < .001). Related grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12 patients (12%) in the stereotactic radiation group and 13 patients (13%) in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group; grade 1-3 fatigue was most frequent (27 [28%] vs 43 [44%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with 5 to 20 brain metastases, these findings support stereotactic radiation over hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation to improve symptoms and interference with daily functioning, key components of quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03075072

2011 Background: Radiation therapy forms the mainstay of management for patients with brain metastases. Published randomized trials have found improved quality of life with stereotactic radiation (SRS/SRT) over whole brain radiation (WBRT) in patients with ≤ 4 brain metastases; comparative trials in patients with >4 brain metastases are lacking. In addition, prior randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of hippocampal avoidance WBRT (HA-WBRT) over traditional WBRT, but no study has compared SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT. Accordingly, we conducted a multicenter, phase 3 randomized trial comparing SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT in patients with 5-20 brain metastases. Methods: Eligible patients were age 18-80 with 5-20 brain metastases secondary to a solid primary other than small cell lung cancer, were naïve to prior brain-directed radiation, and lacked leptomeningeal disease. The primary endpoint was the average of patient-reported symptom severity and interference over the first six months post-baseline relative to baseline, using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT) module, a validated instrument assessing 22 symptoms and 6 interference measures integral to quality of life, each scored 0-10 with higher scores indicating greater symptomatology/interference in function. The target effect size was a symptom severity of 0.70, corresponding to 50% of the observed difference between patients with a good (90-100) versus poor (≤80) Karnofsky performance status; with 80% power and a two-sided alpha of 0.05, 196 patients were required. Results: Between 4/2017-5/2024, 196 patients enrolled, 98 in each arm. The median number of brain metastases was 14 (IQR 11-18); 25% of patients underwent prior neurosurgical resection. Baseline mean MDASI-BT symptom severity scores were 2.2 (SRS/SRT arm) and 1.9 (HA-WBRT arm), p=0.20; respective interference scores were 3.5 and 3.2 (p=0.40). The average of weighted post-baseline severity and interference scores relative to baseline indicated lower symptomatology/inference in the SRS/SRT arm, meeting the primary endpoint of the study (difference between SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT: -1.06, p<0.001). Averaged post-baseline symptom severity scores minus baseline were -0.03 and 0.59 in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (difference -0.62, with lower symptom severity in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001); respective interference estimates were -0.62 and 0.89 (difference -1.50, with lower interference in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001). Median survival was 8.3 and 8.5 months in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (p=0.30). Conclusions: This phase 3 randomized trial indicates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases experience fewer symptoms and less interference in function after SRS/SRT as opposed to HA-WBRT, without compromise of survival, supporting SRS/SRT as the standard of care in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03075072 .

Abstract BACKGROUND Leveraging external data has the potential to increase efficiency and precision of drug development in glioblastoma by complementing or replacing data from in-trial controls. We used an external control arm (ECA) to re-analyze data of the abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115 arms of the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. METHODS INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is an ongoing phase 2 adaptive platform trial in newly diagnosed MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma with a shared control arm of patients receiving radiation therapy with concurrent and maintenance temozolomide. The initial experimental arms (abemaciclib, neratinib, CC-115) have not shown a survival benefit relative to the shared control arm. We re-analyzed the experimental arm data and replaced the shared control arm with an ECA. The ECA was developed from a collection of trial datasets and real-world data available through the Glioblastoma External (GBM-X) Data Platform (). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for possible differences between pretreatment covariates (age, sex, resection, KPS) in the ECA and shared control arm. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS On INSIGhT, patients were randomized to abemaciclib (n = 74), neratinib (n = 80), and CC-115 (n = 12). There were 687 unmethylated MGMT patients in the GBM-X ECA. After propensity score matching, there was no significant treatment effect associated with abemaciclib (HR 1.091, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.536), neratinib (HR = 1.043, 95%CI:0.787-1.383, p = 0.770), or CC-115 (HR 1.088, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.794) compared to the ECA. CONCLUSION In comparison to an ECA, there was no significant survival benefit with abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115. Treatment effects estimates were similar to the primary analyses based on the original shared control arm of INSIGhT. The use of external control arms in early phase testing of new therapies is supported by our findings and could significantly reduce costs and time to conduct trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

PURPOSE The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial that uses response adaptive randomization and genomic profiling to efficiently identify novel therapies for phase III testing. Three initial experimental arms (abemaciclib [a cyclin-dependent kinase [CDK]4/6 inhibitor], neratinib [an epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor], and CC-115 [a deoxyribonucleic acid–dependent protein kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor]) were simultaneously evaluated against a common control arm. We report the results for each arm and examine the feasibility and conduct of the adaptive platform design. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed O 6 -methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma were eligible if they had tumor genotyping to identify prespecified biomarker subpopulations of dominant glioblastoma signaling pathways (EGFR, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and CDK). Initial random assignment was 1:1:1:1 between control (radiation therapy and temozolomide) and the experimental arms. Subsequent Bayesian adaptive randomization was incorporated on the basis of biomarker-specific progression-free survival (PFS) data. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and one-sided P values are reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02977780 ). RESULTS Two hundred thirty-seven patients were treated (71 control; 73 abemaciclib; 81 neratinib; 12 CC-115) in years 2017-2021. Abemaciclib and neratinib were well tolerated, but CC-115 was associated with ≥ grade 3 treatment-related toxicity in 58% of patients. PFS was significantly longer with abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.06; one-sided P = .046) and neratinib (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.02; one-sided P = .033) relative to the control arm but there was no PFS benefit with CC-115 (one-sided P = .523). None of the experimental therapies demonstrated a significant OS benefit ( P > .05). CONCLUSION The INSIGhT design enabled efficient simultaneous testing of three experimental agents using a shared control arm and adaptive randomization. Two investigational arms had superior PFS compared with the control arm, but none demonstrated an OS benefit. The INSIGhT design may promote improved and more efficient therapeutic discovery in glioblastoma. New arms have been added to the trial.

2012 Background: Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. We report on the feasibility and conduct of this approach. Methods: Tumor genotyping was performed prior to treatment assignment on eligible participants with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma to identify biomarker signatures. Initial randomization was 1:1:1:1 between control (temozolomide) and 3 experimental arms (abemaciclib, CC-115, and neratinib). Subsequent randomization was adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-naïve and biomarker-specific probabilities of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective or toxic arms were discontinued by protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: INSIGhT randomized 71 patients to the control arm, 73 patients to the abemaciclib arm, 12 patients to the CC-115 arm, and 81 patients to the neratinib arm between 2/9/2017 and 5/14/2021. Following the initial equal randomization period, early data were repeatedly analyzed during the study to capture early signals of treatment effects across the enrolled population or in specific biomarker subgroups. The results of these interim analyses influenced the randomization probability for future enrolled patients. In total, 77% of the participants were randomized before assessing their biomarker profile and 23% were biomarker randomized. The CC-115 arm opened and closed three times during the safety lead-in. The randomization probability to the CC-115 arm decreased based on poor early PFS results and the arm eventually closed after 12 patients due to toxicity. The randomization probability to the abemacicilb arm increased based on promising early PFS results. After the completion of accrual into the abemaciclib arm, the trial switched to block randomization to finish enrolling into the remaining neratinib and control arms. A total of 28 interim analyses and 32 randomization tables were created throughout the course of the trial with 4 adjustments (3 due to CC-115 closures and 1 due to completion of the abemaciclib arm). Biomarker association trends for neratinib and abemaciclib were similar to those seen in preclinical modeling of the trial. Conclusions: Relative to a standard randomization design, the adaptive platform design facilitated more efficient and economical testing of experimental arms by sharing a control arm, decreasing the probability of enrollment to potentially ineffective arms, and increasing the probability of enrollment to potentially effective arms. Additional future arms are planned on INSIGhT. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial with Bayesian adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to prioritize therapies for late-stage testing. METHODS In the ongoing INSIGhT trial, patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma are randomized to the control arm or one of three experimental therapy arms (CC-115, abemaciclib, and neratinib). The control arm therapy is radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide, and primary endpoint is overall survival. Randomization has been adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-specific probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). All tumors undergo detailed molecular sequencing, and this is facilitated with the companion ALLELE protocol. To evaluate feasibility of this approach, we assessed the status of this ongoing trial. RESULTS Since INSIGhT was activated 4.3 years ago, it has expanded to include 12 sites across the United States. A total of 247 patients have been enrolled. Randomization probabilities have been repeatedly adjusted over time based upon early PFS results to alter the randomization ratio from standard 1:1:1:1 randomization. All three arms have completed accrual and efficacy estimates are available based upon comparison to the common control arm in context of relevant biomarkers. There are 87 patients alive and in follow-up, and there are ongoing plans to add additional arms to evaluate further treatments in the future. CONCLUSION The INSIGhT trial demonstrates that a multi-center Bayesian adaptive platform trial is a feasible and effective approach to help prioritize therapies and biomarkers for newly diagnosed GBM. The trial has maintained robust accrual, and the simultaneous testing of multiple agents, sharing a common control arm and adaptive randomization serve as features to increase trial efficiency relative to traditional clinical trial designs.

Abstract BACKGROUND EGFR is amplified in over 50% of glioblastoma and 20-30% have EGFRvIII mutations. Neratinib is a potent inhibitor of EGFR/HER2 approved for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. To efficiently evaluate the potential impact of neratinib on overall survival (OS) in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, neratinib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between neratinib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). We report preliminary results for the neratinib arm. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant neratinib (240 mg daily). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS. Association between neratinib efficacy and EGFR amplification was also investigated. RESULTS There were 144 patients (70 control; 74 neratinib). Neratinib was reasonably well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was compared (HR 0.84; p=0.38, logrank test – not significant) between the neratinib (median 6.05 months) and control (median 5.82 months) arms. For patients EGFR pathway activation the PFS HR was 0.53 (p-value=0.03 – significant, median PFS: neratinib, 6.21 months, control, 5.26 months). However, there was no significant improvement in OS in EGFR amplified/mutated patients (HR 1.05; p-value 0.87) between neratinib (median 14.2) compared to the control arm (median 14.6). CONCLUSION Neratinib prolonged PFS in the EGFR positive subpopulation but there was no overall PFS benefit, or any OS improvement.

2014 Background: The cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway is activated in most glioblastomas. Abemaciclib is a potent CDK4/6 inhibitor with good brain penetration approved for HR+/HER2- breast cancer. In order to efficiently evaluate the potential impact of abemaciclib on overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, abemaciclib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between abemaciclib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective arms were discontinued and new arms added by protocol amendment. We report preliminary results for the abemaciclib arm which has completed accrual. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide at standard doses or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant abemaciclib (150-200 mg orally BID). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS which was assessed using the log-rank test estimated via the Kaplan Meier method using a type I error of 5%. The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a cox proportional hazards model. Association between abemaciclib efficacy and cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway genomic alterations was also investigated. Results: There were 142 patients (69 control; 73 treated with abemaciclib). Abemaciclib was generally well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was significantly longer (HR 0.67; p = 0.03, logrank test) with abemaciclib (median 6.54 months) compared to the control arm (median 5.88 months). For patients with activation of the CDK4 pathway the PFS HR was 0.64 (p-value = 0.04). However, there was no significant improvement in overall survival (HR 0.9; p-value > 0.05) between abemaciclib (median 15.5) compared to the control arm (median 15.5). Conclusions: Abemaciclib was well-tolerated and prolonged PFS but there is no evidence of an overall survival improvement compared to standard radiochemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

2006 Background: Adaptive randomization adjusts enrollment rates based upon early trial results, which can allow for decreased enrollment for therapies less likely to meet the primary endpoint of a trial. CC-115, a CNS-penetrant, oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin kinase (mTOR) and deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), was evaluated in the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. As CC-115 was discontinued due to concerns about toxicity and unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio, we sought to investigate the impact of adaptive randomization in its testing. Methods: In INSIGhT, adults with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma and available genomic data are adaptively randomized to an experimental arm or the control arm of standard radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients randomized to CC-115 received it (10mg po BID) with radiotherapy and as adjuvant monotherapy, and a safety lead-in 3+3 design was used for this arm. By simulating the INSIGhT trial with standard uniform randomization, we estimated the reduction of enrollment rate and sample size of the CC-115 arm that was attributable to adaptive randomization. Results: Twelve patients were randomized to CC-115; 58% (n = 7) patients had possible treatment-related CTCAE grade > 3 toxicity. Compared to the control arm, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS, HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32-1.36, p = 0.3) or overall survival (OS, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43-2.03, p = 0.8). Based on early PFS results, randomization probability to CC-115 decreased from 25% to 16%. At the time of the CC-115 arm closure, 14% of enrolled INSIGhT patients had been randomized to this arm. Compared to average expected enrollment by standard randomization, the use of adaptive randomization decreased the number of patients randomized to CC-115 by 50% (12 patients vs. 18 patients [95% CI 11-25 patients]). Conclusions: The INSIGhT trial, designed with adaptive randomization, facilitated more efficient testing of CC-115 and decreased the number of patients allocated to the CC-115 arm relative to a standard randomization design. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.