Kizilbash, Sani H.

Abstract Background Glioblastoma IDH-wildtype (GBM) may be diagnosed histologically (hGBM) or based on molecular features when microvascular proliferation and histologic necrosis are absent (mGBM). Clinical and radiographic distinction between hGBM and mGBM remains unclear. Methods 101 hGBM cases were matched to 109 mGBM cases by age, sex, year of diagnosis, and TERT promoter mutation (TERTp) status. Clinical outcome, radiographic, and molecular features were compared across mGBM and hGBM. Results Median time from first MRI to diagnosis was longer for mGBM versus hGBM (34 vs 7 days, p < .001). mGBM more often presented with seizures (51% vs 26%, p < .001), gliomatosis pattern (12% vs 2%, p = .005), basal ganglia involvement (17% vs 0%, p < .001). Contrast enhancement appeared on MRI for 98% (96/98) of hGBM and 50% (54/107) of mGBM (p < .001). mGBM with non-enhancing MRI were rarely multifocal (2% vs 30%, p < .001). mGBM harbored fewer total copy number alterations (median 20 vs 16.5, p = .029), less often had EGFRamp (34% vs 48%, p = .051), isolated chromosome 10 loss (84% vs 96%, p = .013), and CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion (56% vs 77%, p = .005). Median overall survival was longer for mGBM (2.16 vs 1.44 years, p < .001), and for mGBM without MRI contrast enhancement versus hGBM with enhancement (3.11 vs 1.62 years, adjusted p = .003). mGBM without +7/−10 or without CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion had longer survival and time-to-progression versus hGBM with these alterations. Conclusion mGBM with MRI enhancement may represent undersampled or early/evolving hGBM. mGBM that are non-enhancing, present with seizures, prolonged time to diagnosis, absent CDKN2A/B alteration or +7/−10 may represent other IDH-wildtype entities.

PURPOSE STELLAR (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02796261 ) was a phase III, randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy in patients with recurrent grade 3 astrocytoma. METHODS At trial initiation, eligibility criteria included: age ≥18 years, anaplastic astrocytoma (2016 WHO CNS Tumor classification [WHO CNS4]), first recurrence ≥6 months after radiation and temozolomide (TMZ), Karnofsky performance status ≥70, and no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) mutation, age, resection extent, and geography. Patients received eflornithine (2.8 g/m 2 orally, every 8 hours [2 weeks on, 1 week off]) + lomustine (90 mg/m 2 orally, once every 6 weeks), or lomustine monotherapy (110 mg/m 2 once every 6 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Among 343 patients randomly assigned across 74 sites in eight countries, there was no difference in survival between eflornithine + lomustine and lomustine monotherapy (median OS 23.4 v 20.3 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.94). Following changes in classification and grading in the 2021 WHO CNS5, a subset analysis of patients with IDH- mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma (n = 196), defined in 2024, before unblinding, showed clinically meaningful improvements in median OS with eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy (34.9 v 23.5 months, HR, 0.64) and median progression-free survival (PFS, 15.8 v 7.2 months, HR, 0.57). No differences were observed among patients with CNS grade 4 disease. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events of relevance were related to reversible myelosuppression (eflornithine + lomustine 42% v lomustine monotherapy 29% of patients) and hearing impairment (24% v 0%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION Clinically meaningful improvements were observed; eflornithine + lomustine doubled PFS and improved OS in patients with recurrent IDH -mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma, but not grade 4 tumors, after prior radiotherapy and TMZ, consistent with its cytostatic mechanism of action.

Abstract BACKGROUND Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), initially developed for BRCA-mutant tumors, are now being explored in gliomas to target DNA repair defects. In this retrospective analysis, we report our institutional experience using PARPi with temozolomide for glioma treatment. METHODS The medical record was retrospectively reviewed at our institution for neuro-oncology patients treated with off-label PARPi combined with temozolomide for > 1 month between 1/1/2010 and 5/1/2025. RESULTS Nineteen patients (median age 45, 47% female) were included. PARPi included olaparib (n = 18) and niraparib (n = 1). Tumor types were glioblastoma (GBM, n = 7), Grade 4 IDH-mutant astrocytoma (G4A, n = 4), Grade 3 astrocytoma (G3A, n = 2), Grade 3 oligodendroglioma (G3O, n = 3), Grade 2 oligodendroglioma (G2O, n = 2), and IDH1-mutant brainstem glioma (BG, n = 1; IDH status determined per CSF 2-hydroxyglutarate without surgically confirmed histologic subtyping). Patients were heavily pre-treated. One patient lost to follow-up was censored at last contact. Patients had KPS ≥ 70 in all but one case (KPS 60) and multiple prior progressions (treatment was initiated at 4th recurrence or higher in 16/19 patients). Median time from drug initiation to progression, drug initiation to death, and overall survival were as follows (months): GBM (3.0, 6.5, 34.9), G4A (1.4, 3.9, 80.3), G3A (3.4, 4.2, 83.3), G3O (3.8, 17.2, 121.2), G2O (3.0, 3.5, 159.9), BG (4, 5.5, 164.8). CONCLUSIONS This retrospective analysis supports the tolerability of combining PARPi with temozolomide in a real-world, heavily pretreated glioma population. Despite limited evidence of durable tumor control, the regimen provided transient disease stability in patients with few remaining options. These findings may inform treatment in compassionate or salvage settings particularly when alkylator treatment is considered, and highlight the need for prospective trials to identify response biomarkers and assess clinical utility.

Abstract BACKGROUND The IDH inhibitor vorasidenib was FDA-approved for treatment of IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas in August 2024. We evaluated vorasidenib in patients with grade 3 and 4 IDH-mutant gliomas who would not have been eligible for the INDIGO trial. METHODS Retrospective review of patients with grade 3 or 4 IDH-mutant gliomas treated with vorasidenib between 9/1/24 and 5/31/25. Prior treatments, radiographic response, adverse events and seizure control were collected for each patient. RESULTS Thirty-two patients (median age 39.5, 46.9% female) met inclusion criteria. Tumor types included grade 3 oligodendroglioma (11, 34.4%), grade 3 astrocytoma (13, 40.6%) and grade 4 astrocytoma (8, 25%). Thirty patients had contrast-enhancement; 2 patients had non-enhancing tumor. Prior treatments included surgical resection (30, 93.8%), radiation (27, 84.4%), cytotoxic chemotherapy (25, 78.1%), bevacizumab (5, 15.6%), pembrolizumab (3, 9.4%), and ivosidenib (8, 25%). Four patients (12.5%) were naïve to systemic treatment at the time of vorasidenib initiation. Median duration of vorasidenib was 101.5 days (range 18-255) with 19 patients still on vorasidenib at the time of last follow-up. Seventeen patients (53.1%) had stable disease, 11 (34.4%) had progressive disease, 2 (6.3%) did not yet have response assessment, and 2 (6.3%) died. Grade 1 transaminitis occurred in 12 patients with no high grade transaminitis. Two patients developed lymphopenia; both were heavily pre-treated with multiple alkylating agents; no other hematologic toxicity was noted. One patient developed myalgias leading to vorasidenib discontinuation. Nine patients had fatigue, 4 headaches, 2 nausea, 2 decreased appetite. In patients with a history of epilepsy, there were no reported seizures. CONCLUSIONS Vorasidenib was well-tolerated in this heavily pre-treated cohort of grade 3–4 IDH-mutant gliomas, with low-grade transaminitis and fatigue being the most common toxicities. Preliminary results show disease stability in 53.1% of patients after a median of 3.5 months. Conclusions are limited by short-interval follow-up.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) diagnosis integrates morphology and tumor molecular alterations. Patients with classic morphology are designated as histologic GBM (hGBM). Patients without classic morphology harboring TERT promoter mutation (TERTp), or epidermal growth factor receptor amplification (EGFRamp), or combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of 10 (+7/-10) designate molecular GBM (mGBM). We compared radiographic features, genomic alterations, and clinical outcome between hGBM and mGBM. 109 mGBM Mayo Clinic cases diagnosed between 1993-2021 were matched to 101 cGBM by age, sex, year of diagnosis, and TERT promoter (TERTp) status. Clinical and radiographic data abstraction was blinded. Progression-free and overall survival were compared across groups in the subset of patients who received standard of care. Contrast enhancement was present on index MRI (MRI at diagnosis) for 98% (96/98) hGBM and 50% (54/107) mGBM (p<0.0001) patients. mGBM tumors harbored fewer total copy number alterations (median of 16.5 vs 20, p=0.029) and were less likely to have CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion (56% vs 77%, p=0.005). Among the 87 mGBM and 82 hGBM receiving standard of care, median overall survival was longer for mGBM versus hGBM (2.24 vs 1.62 years, p=0.016). mGBM patients with +7/-10 (HR=2.60, p=0.035) or CDKN2A/B (HR=3.61, p=0.002) had poorer overall survival compared to mGBM patients without the corresponding alteration. On index MRI mGBM patients without contrast enhancement had better overall survival compared to hGBM (HR=0.50; p=0.003) whereas there was no survival difference between mGBM with enhancement and hGBM. mGBM with enhancement on index MRI likely represent undersampled, or early / evolving hGBM. mGBM patients with non-enhancing MRI, younger than 60, with long symptom profile including seizures, and some combination of non-anaplastic morphology, TERTp only, no homozygous deletion of CDKN2A/B, and low copy number complexity may represent other IDHwt glioma entities. Caution is advised in counseling, management, discussing prognosis, and inclusion in clinical trials.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) was recently updated to RANO 2.0, which no longer requires follow-up imaging to confirm progression in recurrent glioma patients recieving immunotherapy, as previously recommended by iRANO. This study evaluates the utility of RANO 2.0 to determine whether radiographic progression on initial post-treatment MRI is sufficient to guide timely discontinuation of ineffective therapy. METHODS This retrospective study, conducted at Mayo Clinic, included patients ≥18 years receiving ≥2 cycles of off-label pembrolizumab for recurrent glioma between 1/1/2014 – 5/1/2025. Radiographic response was assessed using the first MRI performed ≥30 days after pembrolizumab initiation. Progression was defined as a ≥25% increase in the product of perpendicular diameters of the lesion, clear progression of non-measurable disease, new lesion appearance, clinical deterioration, or death. For suspected pseudo-progression, sequential MRIs were reviewed; if progression was confirmed, the original date was used. RESULTS Sixty-two patients were included (mean age: 46.1 years; 64.5% male), receiving pembrolizumab for a median duration of 2.8 (1.4 – 19.4) months. Median time to initial radiographic response assessment was 1.6 (1.1 – 3.5) months, and progression-free survival was 2.3 (0.7 – 15.2) months. Thirty-seven (59.7%) patients were identified with progression at initial evaluation. Among them, 11 were initially suspected of pseudo-progression, and continued pembrolizumab: 3 received additional radiation, 2 initiated bevacizumab, while 6 remained on their prior regimens [pembrolizumab only (3); pembrolizumab with bevacizumab (3)]. However, all were subsequently confirmed to have true progression, with a median delay of 1.4 (0.7 – 7.1) months until pembrolizumab discontinuation. No true pseudo-progression cases were observed. CONCLUSIONS Our findings support the clinical applicability of RANO 2.0 in recurrent glioma patients receiving pembrolizumab. Initial radiographic progression reliably predicted true progression, suggesting limited value in confirmatory follow-up imaging. Early recognition of treatment failure may reduce delays in initiating salvage therapies, along with associated toxicity and cost.

Abstract Despite intensive research over the past two decades, all glioblastoma (GBM) Phase 3 drug trials have been negative. The utility of the preclinical studies used to inform development for 10 Phase 3 trials was evaluated by four criteria: 1) drug distribution to the brain, 2) tumor location (flank vs. intracranial), 3) GBM xenograft source (patient-derived (PD) vs. cell line-derived (CD)), and 4) magnitude of survival extension. For the trials evaluated, no preclinical brain:plasma (B/P) data were reported for enzastaurin, cilengitide, nimotuzumab, Depatux-M, or bevacizumab, although IgG typically has a B/P ≈1%. B/P for imatinib was 1-3% and the other four drugs ranged from 25% to 51%. Except for enzastaurin, all drugs were studied in orthotopic tumor survival studies. The best response for each drug compared to relevant control (relative increase in median survival) was 22% (nimotuzumab), 31% (marizomib), 36% (sunitinib CD) / 5% (sunitinib PD), 63% (bevacizumab/temozolomide), 140% (imatinib), 157% (Depatux-M), 220% (veliparib/temozolomide), 300% (cediranib); median survival was not reached for cilengitide. However, only veliparib and sunitinib were studied in orthotopic PD models, and a single CD model (U87 or D54) was used exclusively for four drugs (enzastaurin, nimotuzumab, sunitinib, marizomib). In summary, 6 of 10 drugs had unknown or very poor brain distribution, 8 of 10 drugs were tested exclusively in CD models, which have questionable translational value, and 3 of 10 drugs had nominal activity (<50% survival prolongation) in preclinical survival studies. The stunning lack of clinical progress in GBM is deeply discouraging, but is consistent with underwhelming preclinical testing and the contextual interpretation of those results. Acknowledging multifaceted reasons for failed clinical trials, a more rigorous and critical approach should be used in preclinical studies, coupled with follow-up surgical window of opportunity studies, to identify and promote only the most promising therapies into advanced clinical testing.

Abstract MGMT is primarily inactivated via promoter methylation, but MGMT homozygous deletion (hmzdel) has been rarely reported as an alternative inactivating mechanism. Although functionally similar to a methylated MGMT promoter, MGMT hmzdel is associated with an unmethylated MGMT promoter test result reflecting the MGMT promoter status of the non-neoplastic cells invariably present in any tumor specimen. Thus, patients whose tumors have MGMT hmzdel (and unmethylated MGMT promoter) would be inaccurately predicted to lack benefit from alkylating chemotherapy based on MGMT promoter methylation testing alone. To evaluate the impact of this clinical scenario, we estimated the frequency and distribution of MGMT hmzdel in routine clinical testing of CNS tumors. Among 12,424 CNS tumors (3,044 with provided diagnosis of glioblastoma) tested using Oncoscan chromosomal microarray (2015-2025), 10 tumors (0.08%) had MGMT hmzdel: 8 with entire gene hmzdel and 2 with partial gene hmzdel favored to be inactivating (RNA-sequencing underway to exclude possibility of activating rearrangements). All tumors were supratentorial and non-midline. Median age at diagnosis was 58.5 years (range, 34-81), with 3:2 male:female. Of the 10 cases, 9 (of 3,044; 0.3%) had integrated diagnosis of glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype; the remaining case was a recurrent astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, CNS WHO grade 4. All 10 cases had loss of chromosome 10q and a highly unmethylated MGMT promoter by droplet digital PCR testing of downstream CpG sites 75-80/84-87, with median fraction abundance of 0.19% (range, 0-0.85). In summary, MGMT hmzdel only occurred in high-grade adult-type diffuse astrocytic gliomas, and is a rare potential pitfall for MGMT promoter methylation testing leading to inaccurate patient stratification. It is critical that laboratories performing routine CNS tumor copy number testing include MGMT in the curated list of reportable genes, and that clinicians be aware of this rare clinical scenario to accurately stratify patients despite misleading MGMT promoter test results.

Abstract BACKGROUND Bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody, has emerged as a treatment for radiation necrosis. Doses ranging from 2.5 mg/kg to 15 mg/kg have been utilized however the optimal dosing remains inadequately studied. METHODS Retrospective review of adult patients with central nervous system tumors or brain metastasis treated with bevacizumab from 6/29/2021 to 7/31/2024. Patients were divided into those who received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg every 21 days and those who received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 21 days. The primary outcome was radiographic response as assessed by a blinded neuro-oncologist. Secondary outcomes included clinical response as documented in clinical notes, major adverse events including hemorrhage and thromboembolic events and re-dosing for recurrence of radiation necrosis beyond the 4 initially planned doses. RESULTS 104 patients were included (median age 59.3 years, 55% male); 53 patients in the 7.5 mg/kg group and 51 patients in the 10 mg/kg group. In the 7.5 mg/kg group, 1 patient had a complete response (CR), 16 patients had a partial response (PR), 32 patients had stable disease (SD), 3 patients had progression of disease, and 1 patient did not have repeat imaging. Of the 51 patients in the 10 mg/kg group, 3 patients had a CR, 10 patients had a PR, 27 patients had SD, 5 patients had progression of disease, and 6 patients did not have repeat imaging. There was no statistically significant difference in radiographic response between the two dosing groups (p = 0.42). Clinical response rates were higher in the 7.5 mg/kg group (65.2% vs 37.8%, p = 0.013). Major adverse events and need for re-dosing for radiation necrosis recurrence were comparable. CONCLUSION Bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg was equally as efficacious as 10 mg/kg in terms of radiographic response and may offer a better clinical response for patients with radiation necrosis.