Lamborn, Kathleen R.

2075 Background: Multiple variables may impact endpoints used to assess therapeutic efficacy for patients with recurrent gliomas. To identify prognostic factors for each of 3 outcome variables, a master analysis file was constructed by pooling datasets summarizing key baseline factors and outcomes obtained in 15 North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) trials (n=583, 1980–2004) and 12 North American Brain Tumor Consortium (NABTC) trials (n=596, 1998–2002). Methods: In addition to traditional variables (gender, age, performance score (PS), race, extent of primary resection, year of study entry, last known histology, time since initial diagnosis, baseline steroid use, prior chemotherapy (Y/N), prior nitrosoureas, baseline anticonvulsant use), we investigated prior t (TMZ), number of relapses, academic vs. community site and low grade at initial diagnosis. Outcome variables were: (1) overall survival (OS), (2) progression free survival (PFS) and (3) PFS6 = proportion of patients alive and progression-free 6 months after start of treatment. For all 3 endpoints, Classification and Regression Tree (CART) models and bootstrap samples were used to identify prognostic variables and to look for evidence of interactions among the independent variables affecting outcome. Results: For all outcomes the initial CART analysis selected last known grade (4 vs. 3) as the most important variable. Additional factors selected as predicting poor prognosis differed with grade and outcome measure and included prior TMZ, longer time since primary diagnosis, older age and poor PS. Community vs. academic was not a strong predictor in any of the models nor was low grade at initial diagnosis. Additional analyses are planned to better describe the impact of all the variables on outcome, including use of Cox models and logistic models considering all baseline variables with backwards selection. Conclusions: The results from analyses to date are consistent with current thinking that last known histology (grade) is an important factor. Time since initial diagnosis is likely a surrogate for number of relapses. More definitive conclusions await the completion of ongoing analyses. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract Purpose: A phase I, dose-finding study of vorinostat in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and pharmacokinetics in patients with high-grade glioma (HGG). Experimental Design: This phase I, dose-finding, investigational study was conducted in two parts. Part 1 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 28 days. Part 2 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m2/day for 5 days of the first cycle and 200 mg/m2/day for 5 days of the subsequent 28-day cycles. Results: In part 1, the MTD of vorinostat administered on days 1 to 7 and 15 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, in combination with TMZ, was 500 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included grade 3 anorexia, grade 3 ALT, and grade 5 hemorrhage in the setting of grade 4 thrombocytopenia. In part 2, the MTD of vorinostat on days 1 to 7 and 15 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, combined with TMZ, was 400 mg daily. No DLTs were encountered, but vorinostat dosing could not be escalated further due to thrombocytopenia. The most common serious adverse events were fatigue, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and thromboembolic events. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between vorinostat and TMZ. Vorinostat treatment resulted in hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 in peripheral mononuclear cells. Conclusion: Vorinostat in combination with temozolomide is well tolerated in patients with HGG. A phase I/II trial of vorinostat with radiotherapy and concomitant TMZ in newly diagnosed glioblastoma is underway. Clin Cancer Res; 18(21); 6032–9. ©2012 AACR.