Reardon, David A

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.

Abstract Glioblastoma is the most common type of malignant primary brain tumor and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In 2021, the World Health Organization updated the classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors to restrict glioblastomas to isocitrate dehydrogenase-wildtype (IDHwt) tumors, improving understanding of the prognosis and optimal therapy for these tumors. This revision also enables more homogeneous populations of patients to be enrolled in clinical trials, facilitating the evaluation of novel therapies. In this updated consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of patients with glioblastoma is discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as immunotherapies, viral therapies, targeted molecular therapies, theranostics, and antibody–drug conjugates will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Abstract Background Glioblastoma (GBM) has a median survival of <2 years. Pexidartinib (PLX3397) is a small-molecule inhibitor of CSF1R, KIT, and oncogenic FTL3, which are implicated in GBM treatment resistance. Results from glioma models indicate that combining radiation therapy (RT) and pexidartinib reduces radiation resistance. We added pexidartinib to standard-of-care RT/temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM to assess the therapeutic benefit of altering the tumor microenvironment with pexidartinib. Methods In this open-label, dose-escalation, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 trial, pexidartinib was administered in combination with RT/TMZ followed by adjuvant pexidartinib + TMZ. During Phase 1b, pexidartinib was given 5 or 7 days/week at multiple dosing levels. The primary Phase 1b endpoint was the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Phase 2 patients received the RP2D with the primary endpoint of median progression-free survival (mPFS). Secondary objectives were median overall survival (mOS), pharmacokinetics, and safety. Results The RP2D of pexidartinib was 800 mg/day for 5 days/week during RT/TMZ, followed by 800 mg/day for 7 days/week with adjuvant TMZ. mPFS was 6.7 months (90% CI: 4.5, 11.5) for the modified intention-to-treat population. The actual mOS was 13.1 months (90% CI: 11.5, 24.5), and the mOS corrected for comparison with matched historical controls was 18.8 months (95% CI: 12.6, 28.0). Conclusions This trial established the RP2D of pexidartinib in combination with RT/TMZ and adjuvant TMZ. Pexidartinib was generally safe and well tolerated. Although the study regimen with pexidartinib was not efficacious, pharmacodynamic studies showed modulation of systemic markers that could lead to alteration of the tumor microenvironment.

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.

PURPOSE The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial that uses response adaptive randomization and genomic profiling to efficiently identify novel therapies for phase III testing. Three initial experimental arms (abemaciclib [a cyclin-dependent kinase [CDK]4/6 inhibitor], neratinib [an epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor], and CC-115 [a deoxyribonucleic acid–dependent protein kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor]) were simultaneously evaluated against a common control arm. We report the results for each arm and examine the feasibility and conduct of the adaptive platform design. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed O 6 -methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma were eligible if they had tumor genotyping to identify prespecified biomarker subpopulations of dominant glioblastoma signaling pathways (EGFR, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and CDK). Initial random assignment was 1:1:1:1 between control (radiation therapy and temozolomide) and the experimental arms. Subsequent Bayesian adaptive randomization was incorporated on the basis of biomarker-specific progression-free survival (PFS) data. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and one-sided P values are reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02977780 ). RESULTS Two hundred thirty-seven patients were treated (71 control; 73 abemaciclib; 81 neratinib; 12 CC-115) in years 2017-2021. Abemaciclib and neratinib were well tolerated, but CC-115 was associated with ≥ grade 3 treatment-related toxicity in 58% of patients. PFS was significantly longer with abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.06; one-sided P = .046) and neratinib (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.02; one-sided P = .033) relative to the control arm but there was no PFS benefit with CC-115 (one-sided P = .523). None of the experimental therapies demonstrated a significant OS benefit ( P > .05). CONCLUSION The INSIGhT design enabled efficient simultaneous testing of three experimental agents using a shared control arm and adaptive randomization. Two investigational arms had superior PFS compared with the control arm, but none demonstrated an OS benefit. The INSIGhT design may promote improved and more efficient therapeutic discovery in glioblastoma. New arms have been added to the trial.