Griffith, Jessica I.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive, high-grade glioma with a near-universally fatal prognosis. Therapeutic failure is often attributed to the highly selective blood brain barrier (BBB), the diffuse infiltrative nature of the tumor, and the marked intratumoral heterogeneity of GBM. Although antibody drug conjugates ADCs have shown promise for high grade gliomas such as GBM, efficacy is limited by ADC size. Aptamers—short, synthetic, single-stranded DNA or RNA molecules—can be ∼6-fold lower in molecular weight than IgG antibodies and have the potential to cross the intact BBB. Unlike other nucleic acid-based therapies, aptamer function arises from three-dimensional shape rather than genetic coding. Here we aim to replace the targeting component of the ADC paradigm with a DNA aptamer, thus creating an aptamer-drug conjugate (ApDC). We employed in vivo SELEX using an orthotopic patient-derived xenograft (PDX) GBM mouse model and a vast (∼100 trillion 80-mer sequences) ApDC library. We report the results from this first in vivo ApDC selection of its kind. We characterize target tissue binding ex vivo , cell association, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics from this selection. This study exemplifies an unbiased approach to a problem that rational design has yet to overcome, offering a new direction for GBM therapeutic development.

Abstract Purpose: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) are targeted therapies with robust efficacy in solid cancers, and there is intense interest in using EGFR-specific ADCs to target EGFR-amplified glioblastoma (GBM). Given GBM’s molecular heterogeneity, the bystander activity of ADCs may be important for determining treatment efficacy. In this study, the activity and toxicity of two EGFR-targeted ADCs with similar auristatin toxins, Losatuxizumab vedotin (ABBV-221) and Depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M), were compared in GBM patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and normal murine brain following direct infusion by convection-enhanced delivery (CED). Experimental Design: EGFRviii-amplified and non-amplified GBM PDXs were used to determine in vitro cytotoxicity, in vivo efficacy, and bystander activities of ABBV-221 and Depatux-M. Nontumor-bearing mice were used to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity of ADCs using LC-MS/MS and immunohistochemistry. Results: CED improved intracranial efficacy of Depatux-M and ABBV-221 in three EGFRviii-amplified GBM PDX models (Median survival: 125 to >300 days vs. 20–49 days with isotype control AB095). Both ADCs had comparable in vitro and in vivo efficacy. However, neuronal toxicity and CD68+ microglia/macrophage infiltration were significantly higher in brains infused with ABBV-221 with the cell-permeable monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), compared with Depatux-M with the cell-impermeant monomethyl auristatin F. CED infusion of ABBV-221 into the brain or incubation of ABBV-221 with normal brain homogenate resulted in a significant release of MMAE, consistent with linker instability in the brain microenvironment. Conclusions: EGFR-targeting ADCs are promising therapeutic options for GBM when delivered intratumorally by CED. However, the linker and payload for the ADC must be carefully considered to maximize the therapeutic window.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is one of the most malignant central nervous system (CNS) tumors and accounts for more than 60% of primary brain tumors in adults [1]. While chemotherapy is a frequently employed treatment for GBM, its lack of specificity towards tumor cells leads to toxicity in healthy tissues. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a prevalent targeted-drug delivery strategy that may enhance the therapeutic window. ADC development for GBM has progressed in recent years, yet recent clinical trials have thus far failed to demonstrate drug efficacy [2]. This is likely attributed to poor brain penetration and heterogeneous drug distribution within GBM [3]. Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) is an invasive delivery method that can achieve direct administration of therapeutics to brain tumors and potentially could be used to enhance the delivery and efficacy of ADCs. This study investigates the CNS and systemic pharmacokinetics and distribution of similar payload molecules following CED administration of two GBM-targeting ADCs, ABBV-221 and ABT-414. The ADC payloads are monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) and monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF), respectively, and both are potent anti-tubulin toxins commonly used as warheads for ADCs. Both ADCs and free MMAE were administered as single doses to FVB mice via CED infusion or intraperitoneal (IP) injection. Plasma and brain samples were collected over 24 hours for ABBV-221 and 96 hours for ABT-414, and unconjugated payload molecules were quantified via LC-MS/MS analysis. The results showed that free (i.e., not bound to the targeting antibody) MMAE has a significantly higher exposure in brain compared to plasma when delivered via CED, and exposure in the right hemisphere was 10-fold higher than the left hemisphere, as the site of CED infusion was located in the right hemisphere for all trials. Similar results for MMAE payload were observed after the CED of ABBV-221. Systemic administration of ABBV-221 resulted in a nearly 100-fold decrease in unconjugated MMAE concentration in brain, indicating the poor brain penetration of the ADC. Similarly, following the CED of ABT-414, unconjugated payload concentration was the highest in right anterior brain among all brain regions, and plasma concentration was below the limit of quantification. Systemic injection of ABT-414 resulted in non-quantifiable payload concentrations in either brain or plasma samples. Taking these results as a whole, this study demonstrated significantly enhanced brain distribution of payload molecules from GBM-targeting ADCs following CED compared to systemic administration. The consistent payload delivery pattern observed in both ADCs further supports the potential of CED as an effective drug delivery method for the treatment of GBM. These findings highlight the promise of CED as a means to address the limitations of conventional chemotherapy and improve therapeutic outcomes in GBM treatment. 1. Sarkaria JN et al. Neuro Oncol. 2018; 20:184–91. 2. Lassman AB et al. Neuro Oncol. 2023; 25:339–50. 3. Marin B-M, et al. Neuro Oncol. 2021; 23:2042–53. Citation Format: Jessica I. Griffith, Jiayan Le, Kendra A. Porath, Sonia Jain, Katrina K. Bakken, Jann N. Sarkaria, William F. Elmquist. CNS and systemic pharmacokinetics of antibody-drug conjugate payloads through convection-enhanced delivery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Brain Cancer; 2023 Oct 19-22; Minneapolis, Minnesota. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(5 Suppl_1):Abstract nr B023.

Abstract While the allure of targeted therapies in oncology has been their high degree of specificity and potency for key tumor drivers, they have been disappointing in glioblastoma (GBM), even for drugs that are blood brain barrier permeable and CNS retained. This point is highlighted by the experience with mitotic spindle inhibitors, drugs which block the G2M transition and induce mitotic catastrophe—a phenotype characterized by cell enlargement and polyploidy that leads to apoptotic cell death. We have shown that one of these, a potent inhibitor of the mitotic kinesin Kif11 (ispinesib), is highly active against GBM tumor initiating cells and prolongs survival in murine models of this disease. However, tumors eventually progress, reflecting the development of drug resistance. Although ispinesib resistant GBM cells develop mitotic catastrophe, they become highly resistant to the apoptosis that typically follows and continue to proliferate. We find that this apoptosis resistance requires phosphorylation of the transcription factor STAT3 at two residues—Y705 and S727. Phosphorylation of Y705, mediated by SRC kinase, translocates STAT3 to the nucleus where it induces transcription of anti-apoptotic proteins. Phosphorylation at S727, mediated by EGFR, translocates STAT3 to the mitochondria where it blocks release of cytochrome c—the penultimate effector in apoptosis. Simultaneously inhibiting both SRC and EGFR with FDA-approved, CNS permeant inhibitors reverses this resistance and significantly prolongs survival in ispinesib-treated GBM-bearing mice. Furthermore, we find that resistance to several other mitotic inhibitors also utilizes this STAT3-driven mechanism and can likewise be reversed with combined EGFR and SRC inhibition. Thus, our work demonstrates how a promising therapeutic approach, which has been disappointing in GBM, can in fact be rendered effective by anticipating and prospectively treating ab initio the mechanism that drives treatment resistance.

Abstract Background EGFR targeting antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are highly effective against EGFR-amplified tumors, but poor distribution across the blood–brain barrier (BBB) limits their efficacy in glioblastoma (GBM) when administered systemically. We studied whether convection-enhanced delivery (CED) can be used to safely infuse ADCs into orthotopic patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models of EGFRvIII mutant GBM. Methods The efficacy of the EGFR-targeted ADCs depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M) and Serclutamab talirine (Ser-T) was evaluated in vitro and in vivo. CED was performed in nontumor and tumor-bearing mice. Immunostaining was used to evaluate ADC distribution, pharmacodynamic effects, and normal cell toxicity. Results Dose-finding studies in orthotopic GBM6 identified single infusion of 2 μg Ser-T and 60 μg Depatux-M as safe and effective associated with extended survival prolongation (>300 days and 95 days, respectively). However, with serial infusions every 21 days, four Ser-T doses controlled tumor growth but was associated with lethal toxicity approximately 7 days after the final infusion. Limiting dosing to two infusions in GBM108 provided profound median survival extension of over 200 days. In contrast, four Depatux-M CED doses were well tolerated and significantly extended survival in both GBM6 (158 days) and GBM108 (310 days). In a toxicity analysis, Ser-T resulted in a profound loss in NeuN+ cells and markedly elevated GFAP staining, while Depatux-M was associated only with modest elevation in GFAP staining. Conclusion CED of Depatux-M is well tolerated and results in extended survival in orthotopic GBM PDXs. In contrast, CED of Ser-T was associated with a much narrower therapeutic window.

AbstractBrain tumours have a poor prognosis and lack effective treatments. The blood–brain barrier (BBB) represents a major hurdle to drug delivery to brain tumours. In some locations in the tumour, the BBB may be disrupted to form the blood–brain tumour barrier (BBTB). This leaky BBTB enables diagnosis of brain tumours by contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; however, this disruption is heterogeneous throughout the tumour. Thus, relying on the disrupted BBTB for achieving effective drug concentrations in brain tumours has met with little clinical success. Because of this, it would be beneficial to design drugs and drug delivery strategies to overcome the ‘normal’ BBB to effectively treat the brain tumours. In this review, we discuss the role of BBB/BBTB in brain tumour diagnosis and treatment highlighting the heterogeneity of the BBTB. We also discuss various strategies to improve drug delivery across the BBB/BBTB to treat both primary and metastatic brain tumours. Recognizing that the BBB represents a critical determinant of drug efficacy in central nervous system tumours will allow a more rapid translation from basic science to clinical application. A more complete understanding of the factors, such as BBB–limited drug delivery, that have hindered progress in treating both primary and metastatic brain tumours, is necessary to develop more effective therapies.

Effective treatments for brain tumors remain one of the most urgent and unmet needs in modern oncology. This is due not only to the presence of the neurovascular unit/blood–brain barrier (NVU/BBB) but also to the heterogeneity of barrier alteration in the case of brain tumors, which results in what is referred to as the blood–tumor barrier (BTB). Herein, we discuss this heterogeneity, how it contributes to the failure of novel pharmaceutical treatment strategies, and why a “whole brain” approach to the treatment of brain tumors might be beneficial. We discuss various methods by which these obstacles might be overcome and assess how these strategies are progressing in the clinic. We believe that by approaching brain tumor treatment from this perspective, a new paradigm for drug delivery to brain tumors might be established.