Elinzano, Heinrich

2016 Background: Bevacizumab therapy (Bev) for recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) has not demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) in randomized clinical trials. However, single-center and preliminary multi-center studies suggest that relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) measured with dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC-MRI) at baseline or shortly after treatment initiation may predict response to Bev. The primary aim of ECOG-ACRIN EAF151 was to evaluate whether early binary change in rCBV, assessed 2–3 weeks after initiation of Bev-containing therapy, identifies patients with an OS benefit of ≥4 mos. Pre-specified secondary aims assessed baseline rCBV; post-hoc exploratory analyses examined early post-Rx rCBV. Methods: A prospective, phase II multi-center trial without randomization enrolled subjects with rGBM receiving their first Bev-containing therapy. Progression was determined by local sites (RANO criteria; MRI within 28 days of registration, ≥42 days since end of chemoradiation). Baseline (S0) and follow-up (S1) DSC-MRI were performed before the first Bev infusion (within 3 days), and 12-25 days post-infusion but before the second infusion. Anatomic MRI and DSC-MRI (double-dose Gadavist injection, full-dose preload) complied with recommended protocols. Mean normalized (nRCBV) and standardized (sRCBV) rCBV were extracted from contrast-enhancing tumor ROIs. A 2-sided logrank test (α=0.1) was used to test the primary aim (change in mean nRCBV from S0 to S1, ≥0 vs. <0). Cox regression with restricted cubic splines was used to assess the association between continuous rCBV markers and OS. Results: 146 subjects were accrued from 33 sites. 134 completed S0 and 118 completed both S0 and S1. After exclusion of uninterpretable scans, 107 were evaluable for change in rCBV, and 124 for baseline rCBV. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between subjects with binary increase (n=40; median OS 8.0 mos [90% CI 5.5–9.2]) vs. decrease (n=67; 7.9 mos [90% CI 6.3–10.3]) in mean nRCBV (p=0.67). Based on the spline fits, we observed a strong nonlinear association between OS and continuous nRCBV and sRCBV at both S0 and S1: low marker values are associated with lower risk, but beyond a threshold, higher values are not associated with greater risk. As an exploratory analysis, we estimated optimal cut points (nRCBV: S0=1.11, S1=1.16; sRCBV: S0=1.13, S1=0.99) and found that subjects whose S1 rCBV decreased below threshold had a median OS 2.7 mos (nRCBV, HR 0.61 [90% CI 0.41–0.88]) and 5.2 mos (sRCBV, HR 0.43 [90% CI 0.28–0.63]) longer than subjects whose rCBV either increased or did not decrease below threshold. Conclusions: EAF151 prospectively evaluated whether DSC-MRI markers predict OS in patients with rGBM treated with Bev. Although the change in these markers was not predictive, both baseline and early post-Rx markers were predictive of OS. Clinical trial information: NCT03115333 .

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.