Wen, Patrick Y.

TPS2079 Background: Patient with glioblastoma (GBM) with unmethylated MGMT promoters derive limited benefit from temozolomide (TMZ) and have dismal outcome. Prioritizing the numerous available therapies and biomarkers for late stage testing requires an efficient clinical testing platform. INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is a biomarker-based, Bayesian adaptively randomized, multi-arm phase II platform screening trial for patients with newly diagnosed GBM and unmethylated MGMT promoters. Methods: INSIGhT compares experimental arms to a common control of standard concurrent TMZ and radiation therapy (RT) followed by adjuvant TMZ. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Patients with newly diagnosed, unmethylated GBM that are IDH R132H mutation negative, and with genomic data available or who consent to whole exome sequencing through the ALLELE companion study for biomarker grouping are eligible. Two experimental arms consist of concurrent RT/TMZ followed by adjuvant neratinib (EGFR, HER2, and HER4 inhibitor) or abemaciclib CDK 4/6 inhibitor), respectively, in place of TMZ. The other experimental arm is CC-115 (TORC1/2 and DNA PK inhibitor), which replaces TMZ in both the concurrent and adjuvant phases. Biomarker groups include: EGFR + patients with EGFR amplification/mutation; PI3K + patients with PIK3CA mutation/amplification, PIK3R1 mutation, AKT3amplification, PIK3C2B > 1 copy gain, or PTEN dual loss; CDK: + patients with wild-type RB1 and CDK4 amplification, CDK6 amplification, or CDKN2A > 1 copy loss. Given the lack of pretrial biomarker data and the anticipated overlap of the groups, randomization will initially be equal. As the trial progresses, randomization probabilities will be adapted based on the Bayesian estimation of the probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). These randomization probabilities can vary among the biomarker groups so predictive biomarkers will be identified and utilized if present. Treatment arms may drop due to low probability of treatment impact on OS, and new arms may be added. Experimental arms are compared only with control and should be thought of as discrete experimental questions, with INSIGhT being open to new investigators with proposed therapeutic hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

2023 Background: TRC105 is a humanized antibody targeting CD105 (endoglin), a member of the TGFβ receptor superfamily. CD105 is expressed in glioma stem cells and circulating endothelial cells (CECs) in GBM patients (pts), increasing following VEGF inhibition. N1174 was conducted in recurrent bevacizumab (bev) naïve GBM pts to investigate the hypothesis that CD105 blockade+bev can delay development of bev resistance. Methods: After a ph I cohort (15 pts) established the ph II dose of TRC105 as 10 mg/kg IV over 4 hours every 7 days in combination with standard dose bev, the ph II trial used 1:1 randomization with 90% power and 0.10 type I error to detect a 3 month (mo) difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between the two arms. CECs including CD105 positive subsets were measured by flow cytometry at baseline and multiple time points. Results: Based on 101 evaluable ph II pts, there was no significant difference in PFS between TRC105+bev and bev only (2.9 vs 3.2 mo, respectively; HR=1.14, 95% CI 0.73-1.77, p=0.57), or overall survival (10.0 vs 7.4 mo; HR 1.02 95% CI 0.63-1.65, p=0.93). Response rate (complete or partial) was 12.2% (6/49) for TRC105+bev and 11.6% (5/43) for bev only. Overall incidence of grade (gr) 3+ toxicity was higher for TRC105+bev (67.3% vs 32.7%, p<0.001) mainly due to 14 pts with gr 3 anemia in the TRC105+bev arm vs 0 in the bev only pts. Gr 3+ non-heme toxicities were higher in pts receiving TRC105+bev vs bev only (50% vs 30.6%, p=0.07), mainly due to headache (6 vs 1 pts) and hyperglycemia (3 vs 0 pts). CECs remained stable in combination treated pts, suggesting a possible impact of the anti-CD105 blockade, but increased at progression in the bev only arm. There was no association between PFS and initial changes in CEC values, independent of treatment received. Conclusions: TRC105 plus bev did not prolong median PFS vs single agent bev in recurrent GBM pts, although it was associated with a non-significant prolongation of OS. These data and associated correlative analysis of CECs from study pts point against endoglin being a clinically significant factor for the development of bev resistance. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882. Clinical trial information: NCT01648348.

Abstract Purpose: Glioblastoma is an aggressive and molecularly heterogeneous cancer with few effective treatment options. We hypothesized that next-generation sequencing can be used to guide treatment recommendations within a clinically acceptable time frame following surgery for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Experimental Design: We conducted a prospective genomics-informed feasibility trial in adults with recurrent and progressive glioblastoma. Following surgical resection, genome-wide tumor/normal exome sequencing and tumor RNA sequencing were performed to identify molecular targets for potential matched therapy. A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board issued treatment recommendations based on the genomic results, blood–brain barrier penetration of the indicated therapies, drug–drug interactions, and drug safety profiles. Feasibility of generating genomics-informed treatment recommendations within 35 days of surgery was assessed. Results: Of the 20 patients enrolled in the study, 16 patients had sufficient tumor tissue for analysis. Exome sequencing was completed for all patients, and RNA sequencing was completed for 14 patients. Treatment recommendations were provided within the study's feasibility time frame for 15 of 16 (94%) patients. Seven patients received treatment based on the tumor board recommendations. Two patients reached 12-month progression-free survival, both adhering to treatments based on the molecular profiling results. One patient remained on treatment and progression free 21 months after surgery, 3 times longer than the patient's previous time to progression. Analysis of matched nonenhancing tissue from 12 patients revealed overlapping as well as novel putatively actionable genomic alterations. Conclusions: Use of genome-wide molecular profiling is feasible and can be informative for guiding real-time, central nervous system–penetrant, genomics-informed treatment recommendations for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res; 24(2); 295–305. ©2017 AACR. See related commentary by Wick and Kessler, p. 256