Lee, Eudocia Q

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.

PURPOSE GBM AGILE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03970447 ) is a phase II/III Bayesian adaptive platform registration trial testing multiple arms against a common control; the primary end point is overall survival (OS). Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, showed OS benefit in recurrent (RD) glioblastoma in the phase II REGOMA trial and entered GBM AGILE as the first investigational arm. METHODS Patient subtypes included in the regorafenib arm of GBM AGILE were newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and RD glioblastoma. Prospective defined sets of subtypes, or arm signatures, were NDU, RD, and all (NDU + RD). As the first investigational arm in GBM AGILE, regorafenib was equally randomized to the control arm. Treatment in the control arm is temozolomide + radiotherapy (in newly diagnosed) or lomustine (in RD). Efficacy was assessed by OS hazard ratio (HR), arm/control, and demonstrated when the Bayesian probability of benefit (HR <1.00) was ≥98%. Analysis was performed monthly for limited efficacy, which occurs when the Bayesian predictive power is <25% for all signatures, and determines stopping enrollment. Follow-up continued for 12 months after accrual stopped. RESULTS When the predictive power was <25% in all predefined signatures for regorafenib, accrual stopped for limited efficacy. The final analysis did not demonstrate OS improvement in the regorafenib arm in RD nor NDU glioblastoma. Median HRs were 1.05 (NDU), 1.07 (RD), and 1.07 (all) with final probabilities of benefit (HR <1.00) of 0.421 (NDU), 0.312 (RD), and 0.296 (all). Regorafenib was associated with increased toxicity relative to control. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE did not show superiority of regorafenib over control in RD (lomustine) or NDU (temozolomide + radiotherapy) glioblastoma, yet caused increased toxicities. Regorafenib has been removed from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for RD.

Abstract Purpose: Navtemadlin is a potent small-molecule inhibitor of MDM2, which has completed a phase 0 window-of-opportunity study in glioblastoma (GBM). To optimally interpret the clinical data, a detailed analysis of navtemadlin pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and efficacy was performed in GBM patient-derived xenografts (PDX). Experimental Design: Response to navtemadlin was characterized in vitro and in vivo in GBM PDXs with and without MDM2 amplification. Efficacy in vivo was integrated with measured plasma and intra-tumoral drug levels to develop a translational PK/efficacy model comparing exposure effective in PDX to exposure achieved in phase 0 patient samples. Results: In vitro, navtemadlin showed robust on-target activity in TP53–wild-type GBM. In vivo efficacy strongly correlated with MDM2 amplification status. In subcutaneous PDXs, navtemadlin significantly extended survival when dosed at 25 mg/kg in an MDM2-amplified PDX compared with 100 mg/kg in a non-amplified PDX. Central nervous system distribution was limited by blood–brain barrier efflux (Kp_brain = 0.009). In an MDM2-amplified orthotopic PDX model, navtemadlin was ineffective at 100 mg/kg; when established in mice with deficient blood–brain barrier efflux (Rag−/−Abcb1a−/−Abcg2−/−), 25 mg/kg doubled survival. A tumor PK/efficacy model was built to define target exposure for efficacy in GBM, using the effective 25 mg/kg dose. Modeled exposures exceeded this threshold in three (of 16) tumor samples from phase 0 study patients at the 240 mg dose level. Conclusions: Navtemadlin efficacy was highly dependent on adequate brain penetration. Our translational PK/efficacy model suggests that the minimum effective tumor exposures were achieved only in a minority of patients with GBM.