Lee, Eudocia Q.

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.

Abstract BACKGROUND A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. METHODS We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. RESULTS We described selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. We focused on patient and community factors, disparities, physician and provider factors, clinical trial factors, and site and organizational factors CONCLUSIONS We will implement strategies with the intent to double accrual to neuro-oncology trials over the next 5 years.

Abstract Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.

2024 Background: A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. Methods: We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. Results: We describe selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. Conclusions: We will implement strategies with the intent to double trial accrual over the next 5 years. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Adequately prioritizing the numerous therapies and biomarkers available in late-stage testing for patients with glioblastoma (GBM) requires an efficient clinical testing platform. We developed and implemented INSIGhT (Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy) as a novel adaptive platform trial (APT) to develop precision medicine approaches in GBM. METHODS INSIGhT compares experimental arms with a common control of standard concurrent temozolomide and radiation therapy followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary end point is overall survival. Patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated GBM who are IDH R132H mutation negative and with genomic data available for biomarker grouping are eligible. At the initiation of INSIGhT, three experimental arms (neratinib, abemaciclib, and CC-115), each with a proposed genomic biomarker, are tested simultaneously. Initial randomization is equal across arms. As the trial progresses, randomization probabilities adapt on the basis of accumulating results using Bayesian estimation of the biomarker-specific probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival. Treatment arms may drop because of low probability of treatment impact on overall survival, and new arms may be added. Detailed information on the statistical model and randomization algorithm is provided to stimulate discussion on trial design choices more generally and provide an example for other investigators developing APTs. CONCLUSION INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is an ongoing novel biomarker-based, Bayesian APT for patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated GBM. Our goal is to dramatically shorten trial execution timelines while increasing scientific power of results and biomarker discovery using adaptive randomization. We anticipate that trial execution efficiency will also be improved by using the APT format, which allows for the collaborative addition of new experimental arms while retaining the overall trial structure.

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.