Bent, Martin J. van den

Abstract BACKGROUND The original 3-arm CODEL design included a radiotherapy (RT)-alone control arm, an RT plus temozolomide (TMZ) arm, and an exploratory TMZ-alone arm. We report the analysis involving patients treated per the initial design. METHODS Adults (18+ years) with newly-diagnosed 1p/19q codeleted WHO grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to RT (5940 cGy) alone (Arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant TMZ (Arm B); or TMZ alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was OS, Arm A vs. B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and PFS, comparing pooled RT arms with the TMZ-alone arm. RESULTS 36 patients were randomized equally to the three arms. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients had progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) patients on the RT arms. PFS was shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared to RT-treated patients (HR=3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; p=0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) of RT-treated patients. OS did not statistically differ between arms, although this comparison was underpowered. After adjustment for IDH status (mutated vs. wildtype) in a Cox regression model, with IDH status and RT treatment status as co-variables (Arm C vs pooled A and B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR= 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; p=0.011), and OS differences remained non-significant ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI 0.58, 13.22, p=0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42% and 33% patients (Arms A, B and C, respectively). Neurocognitive assessments, comparing baseline and 3 month timepoints, showed no significant differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS TMZ-alone treated patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the pooled RT arms, which remained significant when adjusting for IDH status. CODEL has been redesigned to compare the efficacy and toxicity of RT+PCV versus RT+TMZ. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887146. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

Abstract To assess the impact of the pandemic on the field, we performed an international web-based survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents from April 24 through May 17. Of 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were in the US, and 314 (55%) were international. 80.4% were affiliated with academic institutions. 94% respondents reported changes in clinical practice; 95% reported conversion to telemedicine for at least some appointments. However, almost 10% practitioners felt the need to see patients in person specifically because of billing concerns and perceived institutional pressure. Over 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. 67% practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial: 53% suspended phase II and 62% suspended phase III trial enrollment. 71% clinicians feared for their or their families’ safety, specifically because of their clinical duties. 20% percent said they did not have enough PPE to work safely; about the same percentage were unhappy with their institutions’ response to the pandemic. 43% believed the pandemic would negatively affect their academic career, and 52% fellowship program directors were worried about losing funding for their training programs. While 69% respondents reported increased stress, 44% were offered no psychosocial support. 37% had their salary reduced. 36% researchers had to temporarily close their laboratories. In contrast, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient and family satisfaction, quality of communication, and use of technology to deliver care and interactions with other practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has altered standard treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options for patients. In some cases, clinicians felt institutional pressure to continue conducting billable in-person visits when telemedicine visits would have sufficed. A lack of institutional support created anxiety among clinicians and researchers. We make specific recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward.

Abstract Background Two methods combining survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in glioma trials to calculate the “net clinical benefit” were evaluated: Quality-adjusted effect sizes (QASES) and joint modeling (JM). Methods The net clinical benefit in two trials was calculated as proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) and HRQoL between the experimental arm and standard treatment arm were calculated, while the relative emphasis placed on survival/HRQoL varied. JM allows simultaneous modeling of HRQoL and OS/PFS. Results In the EORTC 26951 trial, combined radiochemotherapy significantly prolonged OS (difference 11.7 months), but also resulted in more patients experiencing clinically relevant worsening (≥10 points) in appetite loss and nausea/vomiting shortly after treatment. Using QASES, the survival benefit of additional procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) decreased from 42.3 months to 29.5 and 28.2 months when accounting for appetite loss and nausea/vomiting, respectively. JM analyses resulted in a loss of the beneficial effect of additional PCV between 13% and 24% when adjusting for different HRQoL parameters. The EORTC 22033 trial showed no significant PFS difference between radiotherapy or temozolomide alone (46 vs 39 months), nor clinically relevant differences in HRQoL. JM analyses also showed no significant association between PFS and HRQoL scales/items, whereas QASES showed that temozolomide alone was more favorable when considering symptom burden (47–49 instead of 39 months). Conclusions Both methods resulted in different outcomes, but adjusting for the impact of treatment on HRQoL resulted in theoretically reduced survival benefits.

Abstract Determination of therapeutic benefit in intracranial tumors is intimately dependent on serial assessment of radiographic images. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were established in 2010 to provide an updated framework to better characterize tumor response to contemporary treatments. Since this initial update a number of RANO criteria have provided some basic principles for the interpretation of changes on MR images; however, the details of how to operationalize RANO and other criteria for use in clinical trials are ambiguous and not standardized. In this review article designed for the neuro-oncologist or treating clinician, we outline essential steps for performing radiographic assessments by highlighting primary features of the Imaging Charter (referred to as the Charter for the remainder of this article), a document that describes the clinical trial imaging methodology and methods to ensure operationalization of the Charter into the workings of a clinical trial. Lastly, we provide recommendations for specific changes to optimize this methodology for neuro-oncology, including image registration, requirement of growing tumor for eligibility in trials of recurrent tumor, standardized image acquisition guidelines, and hybrid reader paradigms that allow for both unbiased measurements and more comprehensive interpretation.

Abstract Background We report the analysis involving patients treated on the initial CODEL design. Methods Adults (>18) with newly diagnosed 1p/19q World Health Organization (WHO) grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to radiotherapy (RT; 5940 centigray ) alone (arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) (arm B); or TMZ alone (arm C). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), arm A versus B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS), comparing pooled RT arms versus TMZ-alone arm. Results Thirty-six patients were randomized equally. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) on the RT arms. PFS was significantly shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared with RT patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; P = 0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) on the RT arms. OS did not statistically differ between arms (comparison underpowered). After adjustment for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status (mutated/wildtype) in a Cox regression model utilizing IDH and RT treatment status as covariables (arm C vs pooled arms A + B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; P = 0.011), but not OS ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI: 0.58, 13.22, P = 0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42%, and 33% of patients (arms A, B, and C). There were no differences between arms in neurocognitive decline comparing baseline to 3 months. Conclusions TMZ-alone patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the RT arms. The ongoing CODEL trial has been redesigned to compare RT + PCV versus RT + TMZ.

Abstract Glioblastoma is a devastating disease with poor prognosis. Few effective chemotherapeutics are currently available, and much effort has been expended to identify new drugs capable of slowing tumor progression. The phase 0 trial design was developed to facilitate early identification of promising agents for cancer that should undergo accelerated approval. This design features an early in-human study that enrolls a small number of patients who receive subtherapeutic doses of medication with the goals of describing pharmacokinetics through drug blood level measurements and determining intratumoral concentrations of the investigational compound as well as pharmacodynamics by studying the biochemical and physiological effects of drugs. In neuro-oncology, however, the presence of the blood–brain barrier and difficulty in obtaining brain tumor tissue warrant a separate set of considerations. In this paper, we critically reviewed the protocols used in all brain tumor related in-human phase 0 and phase 0–like (“window of opportunity”) studies between 1993 and 2018, as well as ongoing clinical trials, and identified major challenges in trial design as applied to central nervous system tumors that include surgical specimen collection and storage, brain tumor drug level analysis, and confirmation of drug action. We therefore propose that phase 0 trials in neuro-oncology should include (i) only patients in whom a resection of the tumor is planned, (ii) use of clinical doses of an investigational agent, (iii) tissue sampling from enhancing and non-enhancing portions of the tumor, and (iv) assessment of drug-specific target effects. Standardization of clinical protocols for phase 0/window of opportunity studies can help accelerate the development of effective treatments for glioblastoma.

Abstract Despite the widespread clinical use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI, DSC-MRI methodology has not been standardized, hindering its utilization for response assessment in multicenter trials. Recently, the DSC-MRI Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition issued an updated consensus DSC-MRI protocol compatible with the standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) for high-grade gliomas that is increasingly used in the clinical setting and is the default MRI protocol for the National Clinical Trials Network. After reviewing the basis for controversy over DSC-MRI protocols, this paper provides evidence-based best practices for clinical DSC-MRI as determined by the Committee, including pulse sequence (gradient echo vs spin echo), BTIP-compliant contrast agent dosing (preload and bolus), flip angle (FA), echo time (TE), and post-processing leakage correction. In summary, full-dose preload, full-dose bolus dosing using intermediate (60°) FA and field strength-dependent TE (40–50 ms at 1.5 T, 20–35 ms at 3 T) provides overall best accuracy and precision for cerebral blood volume estimates. When single-dose contrast agent usage is desired, no-preload, full-dose bolus dosing using low FA (30°) and field strength-dependent TE provides excellent performance, with reduced contrast agent usage and elimination of potential systematic errors introduced by variations in preload dose and incubation time.

Abstract Glioblastomas are the most common form of malignant primary brain tumor and an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years there have been important advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, but this has not translated into significantly improved outcomes for patients. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of isocitrate dehydrogenase wildtype (IDHwt) glioblastomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as targeted molecular therapies, agents targeting DNA damage response and metabolism, immunotherapies, and viral therapies will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Abstract cIMPACT‐NOW (the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy) was established to evaluate and make practical recommendations on recent advances in the field of CNS tumor classification, particularly in light of the rapid progress in molecular insights into these neoplasms. For Round 2 of its deliberations, cIMPACT‐NOW Working Committee 3 was reconstituted and convened in Utrecht, The Netherlands, for a meeting designed to review putative new CNS tumor types in advance of any future World Health Organization meeting on CNS tumor classification. In preparatory activities for the meeting and at the actual meeting, a list of possible entities was assembled and each type and subtype debated. Working Committee 3 recommended that a substantial number of newly recognized types and subtypes should be considered for inclusion in future CNS tumor classifications. In addition, the group endorsed a number of principles—relating to classification categories, approaches to classification, nomenclature, and grading—that the group hopes will also inform the future classification of CNS neoplasms.