Stupp, Roger

PURPOSE The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time, some limitations of these criteria were identified, and challenges emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. METHODS Informed by data from studies evaluating the different criteria, updates to the RANO criteria are proposed (RANO 2.0). RESULTS We recommend a standard set of criteria for both high- and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the postradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than the postsurgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for comparison with subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks after radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, are required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for the evaluation of treatment for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (two-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type glioblastoma, the nonenhancing disease will no longer be evaluated except when assessing response to antiangiogenic agents. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant nonenhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and nonenhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION The revised RANO 2.0 criteria refine response assessment in gliomas.

Adult-type diffusely infiltrating gliomas, of which glioblastoma is the most common and aggressive, almost always recur after treatment and are fatal. Improved understanding of therapy-driven tumor evolution and acquired therapy resistance in gliomas is essential for improving patient outcomes, yet the majority of the models currently used in preclinical research are of therapy-naïve tumors. Here, we describe the development of therapy-resistant IDH-wildtype glioblastoma patient-derived xenografts (PDX) through orthotopic engraftment of therapy naïve PDX in athymic nude mice, and repeated in vivo exposure to the therapeutic modalities most often used in treating glioblastoma patients: radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. Post-temozolomide PDX became enriched for C>T transition mutations, acquired inactivating mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes (especially MSH6), and developed hypermutation. Such post-temozolomide PDX were resistant to additional temozolomide (median survival decrease from 80 days in parental PDX to 42 days in a temozolomide-resistant derivative). However, temozolomide-resistant PDX were sensitive to lomustine (also known as CCNU), a nitrosourea which induces tumor cell apoptosis by a different mechanism than temozolomide. These PDX models mimic changes observed in recurrent GBM in patients, including critical features of therapy-driven tumor evolution. These models can therefore serve as valuable tools for improving our understanding and treatment of recurrent glioma.

Abstract Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as “recruiting” or “not yet recruiting” as of February 2021.