Hegi, Monika E.

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.

AbstractBackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24–May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.

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 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.

LBA2000 Background: Formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded GBM tumor tissue, adequate for conventional MGMT methylation analyses, was required for entry onto the RTOG 0525 clinical trial. Methods: Four prognostic biomarkers were evaluated on a training set of 220 retrospectively obtained GBM samples, consisting of IDH1 mutation, the glioma-CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP), a microarray-based mRNA panel and a novel MGMT promoter methylation assay. For each biomarker, 2 (IDH1 and mRNA) or 3 subgroups (G-CIMP and MGMT) were defined based on associations with overall survival. All combinations (36 possible) of each of the 4 biomarker-derived subgroups were then defined and compared with survival data and then consolidated into 4 risk groups. Once created in the training set, this model was applied to the RTOG 0525 samples (n=763) for external validation. Results: Application of the molecular risk classification to RTOG 0525 samples (left table) showed a highly significant survival association (p<0.001). When compared to the recursive partitioning analysis (RPA, table on right), this composite molecular classifier better identified patients with long term survival and appears to improve resolution by revealing an additional distinct risk group. The molecular classifier was prognostic in each of the treatment arms individually. Conclusions: Four distinct biomarkers or biomarker panels were tested in GBM. These biomarkers were compared with clinical outcome in a training set to optimize a method to combine them into a classifier. This classifier was then validated on a large sample set from a large phase III clinical trial. This composite panel may represent an improvement over the existing RPA with respect to risk stratification of patients for GBM. Additionally, it has the potential to impact future clinical trial designs and provide enhanced opportunities for personalization of therapy for GBM. Support: NCI U10 CA2121661, U10 CA37422, P50 CA127001. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Glioblastomas (GBMs) are aggressive primary brain tumors with high levels of genomic heterogeneity impacting prognosis and treatment response. A recurrent in-frame deletion within the extracellular domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR variant III, or vIII) is found in a substantial fraction of GBMs. Methods: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0525 trial of temozolomide dosing in newly-diagnosed GBM enrolled 1174 patients. Of these, 494 eligible GBMs were analyzed for EGFRvIII expression by RT-PCR. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of GBMs expressing EGFRvIII with those not expressing EGFRvIII. Results: 142 of 494 tested GBMs (29%) had expressed EGFRvIII. There were no significant differences in PFS or OS between patients whose tumors did (494) or did not (631) undergo EGFRvIII expression analysis. EGFRvIII expression was significantly associated with age (p=0.005), Karnofsky performance status (p=0.02), and RTOG recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class (p=0.005). EGFRvIII expression analyzed in the entire study population did not reveal an association with PFS or OS. In a univariate subgroup analysis of patients treated on the standard-of-care arm of RTOG-0525, EGFRvIII expression was was significantly associated with worse PFS (HR=1.43, 95% CI: [1.05, 1.96], p=0.025), and worse OS (HR 1.45, 95% CI:[1.03, 2.05], p=0.032). However, in multivariate models, when adjusted for RPA class and MGMT methylation status, EGFRvIII was not an independent predictor of either PFS or OS. Conclusion: For GBMs treated with standard-of-care therapy in RTOG-0525, EGFRvIII expression was associated with worse PFS and OS. However, well-established stratification metrics such as age, KPS, and RPA override this prognostic association, suggesting that trials of therapeutic modalities directed against EGFRvIII should utilize these standard prognostic variables when survival is being analyzed or compared. Project Support: This project was supported by RTOG grant U10 CA21661, and CCOP grant U10 CA37422 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Schering-Plough Corporation. Citation Information: Mol Cancer Ther 2013;12(11 Suppl):A110. Citation Format: Daniel P. Cahill, Asha George, Mark R. Gilbert, Arnab Chakravarti, Roger Stupp, Monika Hegi, Paul Brown, Kurt A. Jaeckle, Benjamin Corn, Erik P. Sulman, Luis Souhami, Maria Werner-Wasik, Bethany M. Anderson, Minesh Mehta, Kenneth D. Aldape. EGFRvIII expression is associated with shorter progression-free and overall survival in glioblastoma patients treated with standard-of-care temozolomide and radiation: A report from the RTOG-0525 trial. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2013 Oct 19-23; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2013;12(11 Suppl):Abstract nr A110.

Purpose Radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide is the standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation status may be an important determinant of treatment response. Dose-dense (DD) temozolomide results in prolonged depletion of MGMT in blood mononuclear cells and possibly in tumor. This trial tested whether DD temozolomide improves overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM. Patients and Methods This phase III trial enrolled patients older than age 18 years with a Karnofsky performance score of ≥ 60 with adequate tissue. Stratification included clinical factors and tumor MGMT methylation status. Patients were randomly assigned to standard temozolomide (arm 1) or DD temozolomide (arm 2) for 6 to 12 cycles. The primary end point was OS. Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of MGMT status. Results A total of 833 patients were randomly assigned to either arm 1 or arm 2 (1,173 registered). No statistically significant difference was observed between arms for median OS (16.6 v 14.9 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P = .63) or median PFS (5.5 v 6.7 months; HR, 0.87; P = .06). Efficacy did not differ by methylation status. MGMT methylation was associated with improved OS (21.2 v 14 months; HR, 1.74; P < .001), PFS (8.7 v 5.7 months; HR, 1.63; P < .001), and response (P = .012). There was increased grade ≥ 3 toxicity in arm 2 (34% v 53%; P < .001), mostly lymphopenia and fatigue. Conclusion This study did not demonstrate improved efficacy for DD temozolomide for newly diagnosed GBM, regardless of methylation status. However, it did confirm the prognostic significance of MGMT methylation. Feasibility of large-scale accrual, prospective tumor collection, and molecular stratification was demonstrated.