Blakeley, Jaishri O.

Abstract Objectives Two pilot studies of AR‐42, a pan‐histone deacetylase inhibitor, in human neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2), vestibular schwannomas (VS), and meningiomas are presented. Primary endpoints included safety, and intra‐tumoral pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Methods Pilot 1 is a subset analysis of a phase 1 study of AR‐42 in solid tumors, which included NF2 or sporadic meningiomas. Tumor volumes and treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) are reported (NCT01129193). Pilot 2 is a phase 0 surgical study of AR‐42 assessing intra‐tumoral PK and PD. AR‐42 was administered for 3 weeks pre‐operatively. Plasma and tumor drug concentrations and p‐AKT expression were measured (NCT02282917). Results Pilot 1: Five patients with NF2 and two with sporadic meningiomas experienced a similar incidence of TRAEs to the overall phase I trial. The six evaluable patients had 15 tumors (8 VS, 7 meningiomas). On AR‐42, tumor volume increased in six, remained stable in eight, and decreased in one tumor. The annual percent growth rate decreased in eight, remained stable in three, and increased in four tumors. Pilot 2: Four patients with sporadic VS and one patient with meningioma experienced no grade 3/4 toxicities. Expression of p‐AKT decreased in three of four VS. All tumors had higher AR‐42 concentrations than plasma. Conclusions AR‐42 is safe. Tumor volumes showed a mixed response, but most slowed growth. On a 40‐mg regimen, drug concentrated in tumors and growth pathways were suppressed in most tumors, suggesting this may be a well‐tolerated and effective dose. A phase 2 study of AR‐42 for NF2‐associated tumors appears warranted. Level of Evidence 1b, 4.

Abstract Background The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Methods A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. Results A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). Conclusion Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

OBJECTIVE Phenotypic differences between moyamoya disease (MMD) and moyamoya syndrome (MMS) remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether such differences exist when presentation, procedure-related, and outcome variables are compared quantitatively. METHODS The study cohort included 185 patients with moyamoya presenting to the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions between 1994 and 2015. Baseline demographic, angiographic, and clinical characteristics were compared between patients with MMS and MMD, in addition to procedure-related complications and length of stay (LOS) after surgery. Stroke-free survival was compared between both disease variants after diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare stroke-free survival between surgically treated and conservatively managed hemispheres in both types of disease, while evaluating interaction between disease variant and management. RESULTS The cohort consisted of 137 patients with MMD (74%) with a bimodal age distribution and 48 patients with MMS (26%) who were mostly under 18 years of age (75%). Underlying diseases included sickle cell disease (48%), trisomy 21 (12%), neurofibromatosis (23%), and other disorders (17%). Patients with MMS were younger (p < 0.001) and less likely to be female (p = 0.034). Otherwise, baseline characteristics were statistically comparable. The rate of surgical complications was 33% in patients with MMD and 16% in patients with MMS (p = 0.097). Both groups of patients had a similar LOS after surgery (p = 0.823). Survival analysis (n = 330 hemispheres) showed similar stroke-free survival after diagnosis (p = 0.856) and lower stroke hazard in surgically managed patients in both MMD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, p = 0.028) and MMS (HR 0.62, p = 0.586). The disease variant (MMD vs MMS) did not affect the relationship between management approach (surgery vs conservative) and stroke hazard (p = 0.787). CONCLUSIONS MMD and MMS have largely comparable clinical and angiographic phenotypes with analogously favorable responses to surgical revascularization.

Abstract Purpose: Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) is a rare autosomal dominant disorder associated primarily with bilateral schwannomas seen on the superior vestibular branches of the eighth cranial nerves. Significant morbidity can result from surgical treatment of these tumors. Meningiomas, ependymomas, and other benign central nervous system tumors are also common in NF2. The lack of effective treatments for NF2 marks an unmet medical need. Experimental Design: Here, we provide recommendations from a workshop, cochaired by Drs. D. Gareth Evans and Marco Giovannini, of 36 international researchers, physicians, representatives of the biotechnology industry, and patient advocates on how to accelerate progress toward NF2 clinical trials. Results: Workshop participants reached a consensus that, based on current knowledge, the time is right to plan and implement NF2 clinical trials. Obstacles impeding NF2 clinical trials and how to address them were discussed, as well as the candidate therapeutic pipeline for NF2. Conclusions: Both phase 0 and phase II NF2 trials are near-term options for NF2 clinical trials. The number of NF2 patients in the population remains limited, and successful recruitment will require ongoing collaboration efforts between NF2 clinics. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(16):5032–9)