Hoang‐Xuan, Khê

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the basis of the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOTs) are chemotherapy-sensitive brain tumors. We report the final very long-term survival results from European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 phase III trials initiated in 1990s, which both studied radiotherapy with/without neo/adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) for newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. The median follow-up duration in both was 18-19 years. For European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951, median, 14-year, and probable 20-year overall survival rates without versus with PCV were 2.6 years, 13.4%, and 10.1% versus 3.5 years, 25.1%, and 16.8% (N = 368 overall; hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = .033), with 1p19q codeletion 9.3 years, 26.2%, and 13.6% versus 14.2 years, 51.0%, and 37.1% (n = 80; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03; P = .063), respectively. For Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402, analogous results were 4.8 years, 16.5%, and 11.2% versus 4.8 years, 29.1%, and 24.6% (N = 289 overall; HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03; P = .08), with codeletion 7.3 years, 25.0%, and 14.9% versus 13.2 years, 46.1%, and 37% (n = 125; HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = .02), respectively. With that, the studies show similar long-term survival even without tumor recurrence in a significant proportion of patients after first-line treatment with radiotherapy/PCV.

Abstract Abstract 3655 Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is an aggressive lymphoma with devastating prognosis. High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in combination with HD-cytarabine builds the backbone of current treatments. Elderly patients constitute 45% of cases, exhibit poor outcome and frequent iatrogenic toxicity. However, research efforts to optimize therapy in this subgroup have been neglected. On this background, we conducted a systematic review (SR) and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to provide comprehensive evidence-based management strategy for elderly patients with PCNSL. Patients and Methods SR: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restriction. Eligibility criteria were prospective/retrospective observational studies or randomized trials (RCT) (all N>=10) that exclusively focused on first-line therapy/outcomes in immunocompetent PCNSL patients ≥60 years. Eligible studies were evaluated for methodological quality and reporting of the following baseline characteristics: Age, performance status (PS), involvement of deep brain structures (IDB), serum LDH at baseline, cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) protein concentration elevation, neurotoxicity (as reported), specific co-morbidity indices, and functional status. For the IPDMA, investigators of eligible studies were asked to provide individual patient data. Minimal eligibility criteria: Age at baseline, details about first-line therapy, and follow-up information. If no data were available, studies were included in the SR, but not in the IPDMA. To maximize statistical power and generalizability, published/unpublished data from other international collaborators were included. Impact of different first-line treatments on overall survival (OS) was investigated using time dependent mixed effects multivariable Cox regression models (age and PS as fixed effects, study/database as random effect). Results SR: We identified 13 eligible studies including 583 patients in total, median age 68–76, published from 1996–2011. Design of studies: prospective (3 multicenter [1 RCT]; 2 single center), retrospective (4 multicenter and single-center, respectively). Accrual of the RCT was recently finished, but publication is pending. From published studies, information about age and therapy was given throughout, for clinical performance in 77%, for LDH and CSF protein in 15%, and IDB in 38%. Functional status was reported in only one study. From the identified 13 studies, 261 individual patient data were available for our IPDMA and pooled with 408 patients from other databases; altogether 669 patients diagnosed from 1977–2011. Preliminary results IPDMA: 50% were male, median age 68 (60–70 [N=431], 70–80 [N=211], >80 [N=22]); median KPS was 60% (10–100%). Therapy regimens widely varied. Overall response to first-line treatment was 65% (45% CR, 19% PR). After a median follow-up of 23 months (1–171), 44% were still alive, with a 3-year OS of 32% [95%CI, 29–37%]. Grouping by time of diagnosis revealed improvement for patients diagnosed after 1997 (N=462) (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, MTX-based poly-chemotherapy (CT) (N=474) was associated with improved OS (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.52–0.91) compared to non-MTX regimens (N=195); this was consistent among patients who received consolidating WBRT (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01–0.66) and those who did not (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23–0.89). In patients who received any MTX-based poly-CT, addition of CHOP-like components (N=90) was not associated with improved OS (HR 0.98, 95% 0.65–1.48). Although any WBRT showed an overall trend for superior OS, it was associated with a 4-fold risk increase for neurotoxicity (Odds Ratio 4.21, 95% CI 2.23–8.21). Further results of treatment patterns and explorative comparisons will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion This international meta-analysis revealed widely varying treatment approaches and demonstrates that prognosis for elderly PCNSL patients is still poor. However, improvement over the last decades was observed. MTX-based poly-CT was associated with better outcome compared to non-MTX containing approaches. The addition of CHOP-like regimens to HD-MTX did not improve outcome. WBRT was associated with better outcome, but also clearly increased risk of neurotoxicity. Prospective trials designed ad hoc for elderly PCNSL patients are promptly needed. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Glioma accounts for ~27% of all primary brain tumors and is responsible for ~13,000 cancer-related deaths in the US each year. Glioma tumors can be broadly classified into glioblastoma (GBM) and lower-grade non-GBM. Typically gliomas have a poor prognosis irrespective of medical care, with the most common form, GBM, having a five-year survival rate of only 5%. While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have transformed our understanding of glioma susceptibility, individual studies have had limited power to identify risk loci. METHODS: We performed the largest glioma GWAS to date, comprising a meta-analysis of six existing GWAS (6,405 cases, 14,100 controls) as well as new GWAS from the Glioma International Case Control Consortium (GICC; 4,572 cases and 3,286 controls) and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)-Mayo (1,519 cases, 804 controls), totaling 12,496 cases (6,191 classified as GBM, 5,819 as non-GBM) and 18,190 controls. RESULTS: We identified five new risk loci for GBM at 1p31.3 (rs12752552; near JAK1, P=2.04×10-9, odds ratio (OR)=1.22), 11q14.1 (rs11233250; P=9.95×10-10, OR=1.24), 16p13.3 (rs2562152; near MPG, P=1.93x10-8, OR=1.21), 16q12.1 (rs10852606; HEATR3, P=1.29×10-11, OR=1.18), 22q13.1 (rs2235573; P=1.76×10-10, OR=1.15) and eight for non-GBM at 1q32.1 (rs4252707; MDM4, P=3.34×10-9, OR=1.19), 1q44 (rs12076373; AKT3, P=2.63×10-10, OR=1.23), 2q33.3 (rs7572263; near IDH1, P=2.18×10-10, OR=1.20), 3p14.1 (rs11706832; LRIG1, P=7.66×10-9, OR=1.15), 10q24.33 (rs11598018; OBFC1, P=3.39×10-8, OR=1.14), 11q21 (rs7107785; P=3.87×10-10, OR=1.16), 14q12 (rs10131032; P=5.07x10-11, OR=1.33) and 16p13.3 (rs3751667; P=2.61×10-9, OR=1.18). Case-only analyses confirmed the specificity of 11q14.1, 16p13.3 and 22q13.1 associations for GBM and 1q44, 2q33.3, 3p14.1, 11q21 and 14q12 for non-GBM tumors. In the combined meta-analysis, among previously published glioma risk SNPs, those for all glioma at 17p13.1 (TP53), GBM at 5p15.33 (TERT), 7p11.2 (EGFR), 9p21.3 (CDKN2B-AS1) and 20q13.33 (RTEL1) and for non-GBM at 8q24.21 (CCDC26), 11q23.2, 11q23.3 (PHLDB1) and 15q24.2 (ETFA) showed even greater evidence for association. SNPs at 10q25.2 and 12q12.1 for non-GBM tumors retained genome-wide significance (i.e. P&lt;5.0x10-8). Associations at the previously reported loci for GBM at 3q26.2 (near TERC) and 12q23.33 (POLR3B) did not retain statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings substantiate genetic susceptibility to GBM and non-GBM glioma being highly distinct, consistent with their distinctive molecular profiles presumably resulting from different etiological pathways. Functional analyses should lead to further insights into the biological basis of the different glioma histologies. Such information can inform gene discovery initiatives and therefore have a measurable impact on the successful development of new therapeutic agents. Citation Format: Ben Kinnersley, Beatrice S. Melin, Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Margaret R. Wrensch, Christoffer Johansen, Dora Il’yasova, Quinn Ostrom, and members of GICC, Karim Labreche, Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, Paul A. Decker, Marianne Labussière, Ahmed Idbaih, Khe Hoang-Xuan, Anna-Luisa Di Stefano, Karima Mokhtari, Jean-Yves Delattre, Pilar Galan, Konstantinos Gousias, Johannes Schramm, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Sarah J. Fleming, Stefan Herms, Stefanie Heilmann, Marcus M. Nöthen, Heinz-Erich Wichmann, Stefan Schreiber, Anthony Swerdlow, Mark Lathrop, Matthias Simon, Marc Sanson, Preetha Rajaraman, Stephen Chanock, Martha Linet, Zhaoming Wang, Meredith Yeager, Rose K. Lai, Elizabeth B. Claus, Sara H. Olson, Robert B. Jenkins, Richard S. Houlston, Melissa L. Bondy. Genome-wide association study of glioma reveals specific differences in genetic susceptibility to glioblastoma and non-glioblastoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1302. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-1302