Grossman, Stuart A.

Abstract Current assessments of brain permeability rely predominantly on drug delivery to contrast-enhancing tumor regions. However, substantial portions of central nervous system (CNS) tumors reside within non-enhancing brain (NEB), where drug concentrations frequently remain subtherapeutic. This collaborative Adult Brain Tumor Consortium and Food and Drug Administration workshop aimed to identify criteria for defining NEB permeability to accomplish 2 critical objectives: (1) allocate clinical trial resources toward agents achieving therapeutic NEB concentrations and (2) minimize systemic toxicity when CNS benefit is improbable. The workshop systematically evaluated permeability assessment modalities, including drug physicochemical properties, in vitro blood-brain barrier models, and penetration into cerebrospinal fluid and normal rodent brain. Methodological approaches to determine requisite NEB drug concentrations and approaches to measuring NEB pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were examined. This culminated in developing the Non-Enhancing Brain Permeability Index (NEBPI), which assigns therapeutic agents to 3 categories: sufficiently permeable, insufficiently permeable, or impermeable. The NEBPI provides a standardized framework to assist investigators and regulatory agencies to evaluate NEB penetration before human efficacy studies are initiated for agents that require direct tumor contact. Assessing NEB drug penetration is critical to improving outcomes in CNS tumors and reducing the incidence of brain metastases in systemic malignancies.

Abstract Background High-grade gliomas (HGG) have a poor prognosis despite aggressive treatment. Severe, persistent lymphopenia occurring in HGG patients after concurrent chemoradiation is associated with worse survival. NT-I7, a long-acting interleukin-7 analog, has been shown to increase CD4 and CD8 counts in healthy, septic, and HIV-positive adults. This multi-institutional, NCI-funded dose-escalation trial is the first to evaluate NT-I7 safety and activity in HGG patients with severe treatment-related lymphopenia (TRL) and the effect of co-administered glucocorticoids. Methods Eligible HGG patients had CD4 counts <300 cells/mm3 after 5 weeks of standard chemoradiation and were receiving either ≤0.75 or ≥4 mg/day of dexamethasone. Patients received a single intramuscular dose of NT-I7 (60 or 360 µg/kg) post-chemoradiation, followed by safety evaluation and multi-parameter, longitudinal monitoring of lymphocyte populations and immunologic function. Results NT-I7 was well tolerated in all 12 patients (median age 64; median CD4 count 161 cells/mm³) before the study closed prematurely. Absolute lymphocyte counts doubled in 83% (10/12; 95% CI: 51.6%-97.9%) of patients, and CD4 counts doubled in 42% (5/12; 95% CI: 15.2%-72.3%) of patients. Glucocorticoid use did not significantly affect CD4 or lymphocyte increases. Correlative immune profiling revealed increased Ki67 expression in CD4 (P < .005) and CD8 (P < .05) after one week, along with the expansion of CD4 and CD8 T-cell subsets and CD56 + natural killer cells. Conclusions NT-I7 is well tolerated and effectively increases lymphocyte and CD4 counts in severe TRL patients, regardless of glucocorticoid use, suggesting its potential to mitigate TRL and improve outcomes in HGG.

Abstract BACKGROUND Preclinical studies have demonstrated that IDH1-mutant (IDHmt) gliomas harbor a BRCAness phenotype with a defect in homologous recombination that confers PARP inhibitor sensitivity. METHODS The phase II component of ABTC 1801 examined the efficacy of the combination of pamiparib (BeiGene BGB-290) with low dose metronomic temozolomide in recurrent IDHmt grade 2 and 3 gliomas. In this two-stage design, Arm A enrolled patients who had failed two lines and Arm B a single line of alkylator therapy. Pamiparib and temozolomide doses based on phase I results was 60 mg BID and 20 mg daily. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS 39 patients (Arm A 15, Arm B 24) enrolled in the phase II. Median age was 45 (range: 25-69), 56% male, and median KPS 90. 72% of tumors were MGMT methylated. There were no confirmed responses in Arm A and one in Arm B; neither arm met the threshold for additional accrual. One-third of subjects discontinued treatment for reasons other than progressive disease. Estimated median PFS was 5.8 months in Arm A and 11.3 months in Arm B. Seven subjects (Arm A 3, Arm B 4) developed DLT during treatment. Grade 3+ toxicity was principally hematologic; 9 patients had grade 3 anemia, 7 grade 3 and 3 grade 4 neutropenia, and 3 grade 3 thrombocytopenia. In enhancing and non-enhancing tumors from 8 surgical arm patients, median unbound drug tumor/plasma ratios were 0.98 and 0.92, respectively; and median unbound pamiparib tumor concentrations were 209 and 188 nmol/L (or nmol/kg), respectively, which were >20-fold the in vitro IC50 for PARP inhibition. CONCLUSIONS While pamiparib appeared to achieve sufficient pharmacologically active concentrations in both enhancing and non-enhancing tumors, combination with temozolomide did not produce a meaningful ORR in IDHmt recurrent gliomas. Cumulative hematologic toxicity was substantial.

Abstract Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as “recruiting” or “not yet recruiting” as of February 2021.

Abstract Background Response to targeted therapy varies between patients for largely unknown reasons. Here, we developed and applied an integrative platform using mass spectrometry imaging (MSI), phosphoproteomics, and multiplexed tissue imaging for mapping drug distribution, target engagement, and adaptive response to gain insights into heterogeneous response to therapy. Methods Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) lines of glioblastoma were treated with adavosertib, a Wee1 inhibitor, and tissue drug distribution was measured with MALDI-MSI. Phosphoproteomics was measured in the same tumors to identify biomarkers of drug target engagement and cellular adaptive response. Multiplexed tissue imaging was performed on sister sections to evaluate spatial co-localization of drug and cellular response. The integrated platform was then applied on clinical specimens from glioblastoma patients enrolled in the phase 1 clinical trial. Results PDX tumors exposed to different doses of adavosertib revealed intra- and inter-tumoral heterogeneity of drug distribution and integration of the heterogeneous drug distribution with phosphoproteomics and multiplexed tissue imaging revealed new markers of molecular response to adavosertib. Analysis of paired clinical specimens from patients enrolled in the phase 1 clinical trial informed the translational potential of the identified biomarkers in studying patient’s response to adavosertib. Conclusions The multimodal platform identified a signature of drug efficacy and patient-specific adaptive responses applicable to preclinical and clinical drug development. The information generated by the approach may inform mechanisms of success and failure in future early phase clinical trials, providing information for optimizing clinical trial design and guiding future application into clinical practice.

Abstract BACKGROUND The original 3-arm CODEL design included a radiotherapy (RT)-alone control arm, an RT plus temozolomide (TMZ) arm, and an exploratory TMZ-alone arm. We report the analysis involving patients treated per the initial design. METHODS Adults (18+ years) with newly-diagnosed 1p/19q codeleted WHO grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to RT (5940 cGy) alone (Arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant TMZ (Arm B); or TMZ alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was OS, Arm A vs. B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and PFS, comparing pooled RT arms with the TMZ-alone arm. RESULTS 36 patients were randomized equally to the three arms. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients had progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) patients on the RT arms. PFS was shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared to RT-treated patients (HR=3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; p=0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) of RT-treated patients. OS did not statistically differ between arms, although this comparison was underpowered. After adjustment for IDH status (mutated vs. wildtype) in a Cox regression model, with IDH status and RT treatment status as co-variables (Arm C vs pooled A and B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR= 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; p=0.011), and OS differences remained non-significant ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI 0.58, 13.22, p=0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42% and 33% patients (Arms A, B and C, respectively). Neurocognitive assessments, comparing baseline and 3 month timepoints, showed no significant differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS TMZ-alone treated patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the pooled RT arms, which remained significant when adjusting for IDH status. CODEL has been redesigned to compare the efficacy and toxicity of RT+PCV versus RT+TMZ. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887146. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

Abstract Background We report the analysis involving patients treated on the initial CODEL design. Methods Adults (>18) with newly diagnosed 1p/19q World Health Organization (WHO) grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to radiotherapy (RT; 5940 centigray ) alone (arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) (arm B); or TMZ alone (arm C). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), arm A versus B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS), comparing pooled RT arms versus TMZ-alone arm. Results Thirty-six patients were randomized equally. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) on the RT arms. PFS was significantly shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared with RT patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; P = 0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) on the RT arms. OS did not statistically differ between arms (comparison underpowered). After adjustment for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status (mutated/wildtype) in a Cox regression model utilizing IDH and RT treatment status as covariables (arm C vs pooled arms A + B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; P = 0.011), but not OS ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI: 0.58, 13.22, P = 0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42%, and 33% of patients (arms A, B, and C). There were no differences between arms in neurocognitive decline comparing baseline to 3 months. Conclusions TMZ-alone patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the RT arms. The ongoing CODEL trial has been redesigned to compare RT + PCV versus RT + TMZ.

AbstractBuilding on an initiative to enhance clinical trial participation involving the Society for Neuro-Oncology, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners, we evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria and trial conduct on neuro-oncology clinical trial participation. Clinical trials often carry forward eligibility criteria from prior studies that may be overly restrictive and unnecessary and needlessly limit patient accrual. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be evaluated based on the goals and design of the study and whether they impact patient safety and/or treatment efficacy. In addition, we evaluate clinical trial conduct as a barrier to accrual and discuss strategies to minimize such barriers for neuro-oncology trials.