Nabors, Burt

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating cancer with a dismal prognosis. Current treatment includes temozolomide (TMZ), which is more effective in about 50% of GBMs that have O 6 - methylguanine DNA methyltransferase ( MGMT ) promoter methylation. MGMT is a DNA repair protein that reverses TMZ-induced DNA damage. EGFR is a prime oncogene in GBM. Here, we report that EGFR inhibition induced the down-regulation of MGMT in GBM cells, revealing a previously unidentified link between EGFR signaling and response to TMZ. EGFR inhibition led to activation of two transcription factors, activator protein-1 (AP-1), which repressed MGMT transcription, and nuclear factor κB (NF-κB), which up-regulated MGMT transcription. EGFR inhibition also induced AP-1–mediated transcription of miR-616. miR-616 inhibited both MGMT translation and NF-κB activation. Thus, the overall effect of EGFR inhibition was down-regulation of MGMT expression. In addition, we provided an explanation for the prior failure of clinical trials that used concomitant EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and TMZ. TMZ up-regulated MGMT, and concomitant treatment with EGFR TKIs and TMZ failed to down-regulate MGMT. However, pretreatment with EGFR TKIs followed by TMZ efficiently down-regulated MGMT and enhanced TMZ sensitivity in experimental models. Posttreatment tumor tissues from two clinical trials were used to validate these findings. We demonstrated that EGFR inhibitors induced down-regulation of MGMT in posttreatment resected tumor tissues from patients with GBM and the failure of EGFR inhibition to down-regulate MGMT if TMZ was used concomitantly. These data support using EGFR TKIs before TMZ treatment as a therapeutic approach in MGMT unmethylated GBM.

ABSTRACT Background Most genomic studies of adult-type diffuse gliomas have focused on predominantly European ancestry populations, limiting the generalizability of molecular classifications and precision medicine approaches. We assembled a multi-institutional glioma cohort of diverse patients to investigate how germline ancestry, molecular subtypes, and mutational processes shape tumor biology and clinical outcomes. Methods We analyzed 1,102 adults with WHO 2021–classified diffuse gliomas (IDH-mutant, 1p/19q-codeleted oligodendroglioma; IDH-mutant astrocytoma; IDH-wildtype glioma) from seven U.S. institutions. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) of FFPE tumors identified somatic alterations and COSMIC SBS v3.2 mutational signatures. Genetic ancestry was estimated from WES using 1000 Genomes reference populations. Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier and multivariable models. Results The cohort included 66.9% European (EUR), 21.1% Admixed American/Hispanic (AMR), 10.3% Admixed African (AFR), and 1.6% Asian (AS) ancestry. Survival followed expected molecular hierarchy (median overall survival: oligodendroglioma 15.7 years, astrocytoma 10.6 years, IDH-wildtype glioma 1.9 years). Within oligodendroglioma, AMR patients showed improved survival versus EUR (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.94; p=0.011), with similar trends across subtypes. Somatic profiling confirmed canonical subtype-defining alterations and revealed higher ATRX alterations in AFR and AMR IDH-wildtype tumors compared with EUR. ATRX alterations were associated with improved survival only in AFR (p=0.003). Mutational signature analysis identified subtype-specific signatures, including therapy-associated signatures. Chemotherapy-related signatures were more frequent in EUR and AMR than in AFR. Conclusions This ancestrally diverse glioma cohort confirms established molecular classifications and identifies ancestry-associated differences in survival, somatic alterations, and mutational processes, indicating the critical need for broad representation to inform precision neuro-oncology. Key Points A multi-institutional glioma cohort validates subtype and survival patterns across ancestries. Therapy-associated mutational signatures differ by ancestry, suggesting distinct treatment-related mutational processes. Admixed American patients show improved survival, particularly in oligodendroglioma. Importance of the Study Most genomic studies of adult-type diffuse glioma have focused on populations of predominantly European ancestry which limits the ability to examine variation in tumor biology and clinical outcomes across populations. In this study, we assembled one of the largest ancestrally diverse cohorts of molecularly characterized adult diffuse gliomas, integrating germline ancestry inference with tumor whole-exome sequencing and mutational signature analysis. We confirm that established molecular classifications and survival hierarchies remain robust across ancestry groups. However, we also identified ancestry-associated differences in survival within specific tumor subtypes, higher ATRX alteration frequencies in African American and admixed American patients with IDH-wildtype tumors, and variation in therapy-associated mutational signatures across ancestry groups. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating population differences into genomic studies of glioma and provide a resource for future multi-ancestry investigations of glioma risk, tumor evolution, and treatment response, ultimately supporting more inclusive precision neuro-oncology.

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.

PURPOSE GBM AGILE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03970447 ) is a phase II/III Bayesian adaptive platform registration trial testing multiple arms against a common control; the primary end point is overall survival (OS). Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, showed OS benefit in recurrent (RD) glioblastoma in the phase II REGOMA trial and entered GBM AGILE as the first investigational arm. METHODS Patient subtypes included in the regorafenib arm of GBM AGILE were newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and RD glioblastoma. Prospective defined sets of subtypes, or arm signatures, were NDU, RD, and all (NDU + RD). As the first investigational arm in GBM AGILE, regorafenib was equally randomized to the control arm. Treatment in the control arm is temozolomide + radiotherapy (in newly diagnosed) or lomustine (in RD). Efficacy was assessed by OS hazard ratio (HR), arm/control, and demonstrated when the Bayesian probability of benefit (HR <1.00) was ≥98%. Analysis was performed monthly for limited efficacy, which occurs when the Bayesian predictive power is <25% for all signatures, and determines stopping enrollment. Follow-up continued for 12 months after accrual stopped. RESULTS When the predictive power was <25% in all predefined signatures for regorafenib, accrual stopped for limited efficacy. The final analysis did not demonstrate OS improvement in the regorafenib arm in RD nor NDU glioblastoma. Median HRs were 1.05 (NDU), 1.07 (RD), and 1.07 (all) with final probabilities of benefit (HR <1.00) of 0.421 (NDU), 0.312 (RD), and 0.296 (all). Regorafenib was associated with increased toxicity relative to control. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE did not show superiority of regorafenib over control in RD (lomustine) or NDU (temozolomide + radiotherapy) glioblastoma, yet caused increased toxicities. Regorafenib has been removed from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for RD.

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.

PURPOSE STELLAR (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02796261 ) was a phase III, randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy in patients with recurrent grade 3 astrocytoma. METHODS At trial initiation, eligibility criteria included: age ≥18 years, anaplastic astrocytoma (2016 WHO CNS Tumor classification [WHO CNS4]), first recurrence ≥6 months after radiation and temozolomide (TMZ), Karnofsky performance status ≥70, and no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) mutation, age, resection extent, and geography. Patients received eflornithine (2.8 g/m 2 orally, every 8 hours [2 weeks on, 1 week off]) + lomustine (90 mg/m 2 orally, once every 6 weeks), or lomustine monotherapy (110 mg/m 2 once every 6 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Among 343 patients randomly assigned across 74 sites in eight countries, there was no difference in survival between eflornithine + lomustine and lomustine monotherapy (median OS 23.4 v 20.3 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.94). Following changes in classification and grading in the 2021 WHO CNS5, a subset analysis of patients with IDH- mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma (n = 196), defined in 2024, before unblinding, showed clinically meaningful improvements in median OS with eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy (34.9 v 23.5 months, HR, 0.64) and median progression-free survival (PFS, 15.8 v 7.2 months, HR, 0.57). No differences were observed among patients with CNS grade 4 disease. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events of relevance were related to reversible myelosuppression (eflornithine + lomustine 42% v lomustine monotherapy 29% of patients) and hearing impairment (24% v 0%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION Clinically meaningful improvements were observed; eflornithine + lomustine doubled PFS and improved OS in patients with recurrent IDH -mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma, but not grade 4 tumors, after prior radiotherapy and TMZ, consistent with its cytostatic mechanism of action.

Abstract BACKGROUND STELLAR was a phase III randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine (ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor) with lomustine versus lomustine alone in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA). We previously reported an overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of the combination in the patients with grade 3 IDH-mutant astrocytoma. Here we report updated OS and PFS outcomes based on additional molecular classification and blinded independent central review (BICR). METHOD Eligibility included: age ≥ 18 years, AA (2016 WHO criteria) with first recurrence ≥ 6 months after radiation, KPS ≥ 70, and no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Patients received eflornithine (2.8 g/m2 TID Q 2/3 weeks) with lomustine (90 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) (Arm A) or lomustine alone (110 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) (Arm B). Primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS Updated molecular data resulted in re-classification of the 343 AA patients enrolled into 3 WHO 2021 defined tumor subtypes, 196 tumors were IDHmut, CDKN2A/B intact, consistent with diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 3, 33 tumors had CDKN2A/B loss consistent with astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 4, 106 tumors were IDHwt consistent with diagnosis of glioblastoma, IDHwt, WHO grade 4. Updated results strengthen initial conclusion that eflornithine plus lomustine resulted in significant survival benefit in the astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 3 group (mOS 34.9 vs, 23.5 months, HR = 0.64, stratified log rank p =0.0136). PFS with eflornithine was also improved (15.8 vs, 7.2 months, HR = 0.57, stratified log rank p =0.0113). BICR demonstrated a high correlation between investigator and centrally determined PFS (p=0.0305), and high correlation between OS and PFS (p=.0001). CONCLUSION The clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits observed with eflornithine in the molecularly defined 2021 WHO CNS grade 3 astrocytomas is further confirmed and expanded based on additional molecular classification and BICR of PFS.

Importance Molecular techniques, including next-generation sequencing, genomic copy number profiling, fusion transcript detection, and genomic DNA methylation arrays, are now indispensable tools for the workup of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Yet there remains a great deal of heterogeneity in using such biomarker testing across institutions and hospital systems. This is in large part because there is a persistent reluctance among third-party payers to cover molecular testing. The objective of this Review is to describe why comprehensive molecular biomarker testing is now required for the accurate diagnosis and grading and prognostication of CNS tumors and, in so doing, to justify more widespread use by clinicians and coverage by third-party payers. Observations The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system for CNS tumors incorporates specific molecular signatures into the essential diagnostic criteria for most tumor entities. Many CNS tumor types cannot be reliably diagnosed according to current WHO guidelines without molecular testing. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also incorporates molecular testing into their guidelines for CNS tumors. Both sets of guidelines are maximally effective if they are implemented routinely for all patients with CNS tumors. Moreover, the cost of these tests is less than 5% of the overall average cost of caring for patients with CNS tumors and consistently improves management. This includes more accurate diagnosis and prognostication, clinical trial eligibility, and prediction of response to specific treatments. Each major group of CNS tumors in the WHO classification is evaluated and how molecular diagnostics enhances patient care is described. Conclusions and Relevance Routine advanced multidimensional molecular profiling is now required to provide optimal standard of care for patients with CNS tumors.

Abstract BACKGROUND Recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA), a grade 3 brain cancer, remains an unmet medical need. STELLAR was a phase III randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine (ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor) with lomustine versus lomustine alone, originally for patients with recurrent AA. However, as the WHO definition of AA evolved during trial conduct (e.g., excluding IDH wild-type disease), we determined results in both the original ITT population and by revised molecularly defined WHO 2021 diagnoses in pre-planned analyses. METHOD Key eligibility: age ≥ 18, AA (2016 WHO criteria), first recurrence ≥ 6 months after radiation and temozolomide, KPS ≥ 70, no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Stratification: IDH, age, resection extent, and geography. Patients were randomized to Arm A: eflornithine (2.8 g/m2 TID Q 2/3 weeks) with lomustine (90 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) or Arm B: lomustine (110 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks). Primary endpoint was OS. The pre-specified hazard ratio (HR) goal was 0.667 based on projected median OS (mOS) increase to 18 months from 12 months. RESULTS 343 pts (172/171 Arms A/B) were randomized (105 sites, 8 countries). ITT analysis found no difference between arms (mOS 23.4 vs. 20.3 months, HR = 0.94). However, a pre-specified subset analysis in IDH mutant, 2021 WHO-defined grade 3 astrocytoma (n=194), showed significant improvement with eflornithine (mOS 34.9 vs. 23.5 months, HR = 0.64, log rank p = 0.016) and PFS (15.8 vs. 7.2 months, HR = 0.58, log rank p = 0.015). No difference was observed in the IDH wild-type subset. AEs were consistent with historic data. CONCLUSION There was no difference in OS between arms in the ITT analysis. However, medically meaningful and statistically significant OS and PFS benefits were observed with eflornithine in the pre-planned analysis of patients with molecularly defined 2021 WHO CNS grade 3 astrocytoma.

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.