Back to Authors

Alexander, Brian

Mayo Clinic

Valo Health, Lexington, Massachusetts

Citations 2

Evaluation of Regorafenib in Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma: GBM AGILE Phase II/III Bayesian Randomized Platform Trial
Wen, Patrick Y. , Berry, Donald A. , Buxton, Meredith , Colman, Howard , Groot, John de , Lim, Michael, Mellinghoff, Ingo K. , Perry, James, Weller, M, Blondin, Nicholas A., Butt, Omar H. , Damek, Denise M., Fuente, Macarena I. de la , Drappatz, Jan, Dunbar, Erin, Giglio, Pierre , Hyddmark, Emma Viktoria, Iwamoto, Fabio, Jaeckle, Kurt A. , Kim, Lyndon, Kling, Heather M., Lee, Eudocia Q., Mantica, Megan , Mikkelsen, Tom, Newton, Herbert B. , Walbert, Tobias , Weathers, Shiao‐Pei , Lassman, Andrew B. , Group, for the GBM AGILE Regorafenib Study, Alexander, Brian, Anker, Lars , Berry, Nicholas , Cloughesy, Tim, Connelly, Jennifer , Detry, Michelle A. , Fitzgerald, Mark, Gordon, Gary, Graves, Todd, Hu, Jethro , Hyddmark, Emma Maria Viktoria, Johnson, Adam, Kalabic, Marija, Lesser, Glenn J., Marion, Joe , Owen, Scott, Perry, James R, Peters, Katherine B., Powell, Ashley, Saunders, Christina T., Tanner, Kirk, Untch, Sarah, Wilcox, Emma, Yung, W. K. Alfred, Lim, Michael , Buxton, Meredith , de Groot, John , Mellinghoff, Ingo K , Weller, Michael , De La Fuente, Macarena , Lee, Eudocia Q , Mantica, Megan , Nabors, Louis Burt , Newton, Herbert B , Olson, Jeffrey J. , Schiff, David , Walbert, Tobias , Weathers, Shiao-Pei , Cloughesy, Timothy F , Lassman, Andrew B , Berry, Donald , Colman, Howard , Blondin, Nicolas, Drappatz, Jan , Iwamoto, Fabio M., Lee, Eudocia Q. , Mikkelsen, Tom , Nabors, Burt , Newton, Herbert B. , Cloughesy, Timothy F. , Anderson, Mark D., Cavenee, Webster K. , Connelly, Jennifer , Ellingson, Benjamin M. , Galanis, Evanthia , Gordon, Gary, Graber, Jerome J. , Khasraw, Mustafa , Lesser, Glenn J. , McGlothlin, Anna , Peters, Katherine B. , Saunders, Christina T. , Sulman, Erik P. , Tanner, Kirk, Yung, W.K. Alfred

Journal of Clinical Oncology | April 14, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 18 | Pages: 1676-1686

10.1200/jco-25-01137 Get It

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.
Treatment for Brain Metastases With Stereotactic Radiation vs Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain Radiation
Aizer, Ayal A., Shin, Kee-Young, Catalano, Paul J. , Ricca, Ivy, Johnson, Marciana, Benham, Grant, Röper, Kristin, Spicer, Beverly, Mann, Eileen, Nosker, Jennifer , Parsons, Michael W., Mendu, Mallika L. , Hepel, Jaroslaw T., Chipidza, Fallon , Krishnan, Monica, Shi, Diana, Lamba, Nayan, Pashtan, Itai , Peng, Luke, Alexander, Brian, Brown, Paul D., Wen, Patrick Y , Haas-Kogan, Daphne A., Rahman, Rifaquat M., Tanguturi, Shyam , Parsons, Michael , Parsons, Michael W , Tanguturi, Shyam K , Ricca, Ivy , Aizer, Ayal A. , Mann, Eileen, Shi, Diana D. , Lamba, Nayan , Haas-Kogan, Daphne , Rahman, Rifaquat

JAMA | February 19, 2026 | Volume: 335 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 1127

10.1001/jama.2026.0076 Get It

Importance Brain metastases are common in patients with cancer, and radiation is often used for management. Among patients with more than 4 brain metastases, the effects of stereotactic radiation targeting only individual tumors, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance, which radiates both tumors and normal brain, remain unknown. Objective To determine whether stereotactic radiation improves symptom severity and interference with daily functioning, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 United States–based centers. Eligible patients had 5 to 20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation. Enrollment occurred between April 11, 2017, and May 17, 2024 (final follow-up, March 18, 2025). Intervention Stereotactic radiation, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months postbaseline relative to baseline using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor instrument (scale, 0-10; score change range, −10 to 10; −10 = best). A clinically meaningful Δ was defined as 0.98. Results Of 196 randomized patients (mean age, 61 years; 129 [66%] female; 176 [90%] White; median number of brain metastases, 14 [IQR, 11-18]; 49 [25%] with prior neurosurgical resection), 83 (42%) completed the 6-month assessment. For the primary outcome, between baseline and postbaseline assessments through the 6-month follow-up, stereotactic radiation changed the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor score from 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, −0.32) and hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation changed the score from 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) (mean difference, −1.06 [95% CI, −1.54 to −0.58]; P &amp;lt; .001). Related grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12 patients (12%) in the stereotactic radiation group and 13 patients (13%) in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group; grade 1-3 fatigue was most frequent (27 [28%] vs 43 [44%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with 5 to 20 brain metastases, these findings support stereotactic radiation over hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation to improve symptoms and interference with daily functioning, key components of quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03075072