Rahman, Rifaquat

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.

Abstract BACKGROUND 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 uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, the RANO working group developed updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). RESULTS Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, 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 post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor 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 (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION These criteria represent a work in progress that will hopefully improve the assessment of response in glioma trials. Future updates will incorporate novel developments, advanced imaging techniques, and endpoints as they become validated.

Abstract The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve the reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, we propose updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, 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 post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment.

2012 Background: Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. We report on the feasibility and conduct of this approach. Methods: Tumor genotyping was performed prior to treatment assignment on eligible participants with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma to identify biomarker signatures. Initial randomization was 1:1:1:1 between control (temozolomide) and 3 experimental arms (abemaciclib, CC-115, and neratinib). Subsequent randomization was adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-naïve and biomarker-specific probabilities of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective or toxic arms were discontinued by protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: INSIGhT randomized 71 patients to the control arm, 73 patients to the abemaciclib arm, 12 patients to the CC-115 arm, and 81 patients to the neratinib arm between 2/9/2017 and 5/14/2021. Following the initial equal randomization period, early data were repeatedly analyzed during the study to capture early signals of treatment effects across the enrolled population or in specific biomarker subgroups. The results of these interim analyses influenced the randomization probability for future enrolled patients. In total, 77% of the participants were randomized before assessing their biomarker profile and 23% were biomarker randomized. The CC-115 arm opened and closed three times during the safety lead-in. The randomization probability to the CC-115 arm decreased based on poor early PFS results and the arm eventually closed after 12 patients due to toxicity. The randomization probability to the abemacicilb arm increased based on promising early PFS results. After the completion of accrual into the abemaciclib arm, the trial switched to block randomization to finish enrolling into the remaining neratinib and control arms. A total of 28 interim analyses and 32 randomization tables were created throughout the course of the trial with 4 adjustments (3 due to CC-115 closures and 1 due to completion of the abemaciclib arm). Biomarker association trends for neratinib and abemaciclib were similar to those seen in preclinical modeling of the trial. Conclusions: Relative to a standard randomization design, the adaptive platform design facilitated more efficient and economical testing of experimental arms by sharing a control arm, decreasing the probability of enrollment to potentially ineffective arms, and increasing the probability of enrollment to potentially effective arms. Additional future arms are planned on INSIGhT. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial with Bayesian adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to prioritize therapies for late-stage testing. METHODS In the ongoing INSIGhT trial, patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma are randomized to the control arm or one of three experimental therapy arms (CC-115, abemaciclib, and neratinib). The control arm therapy is radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide, and primary endpoint is overall survival. Randomization has been adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-specific probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). All tumors undergo detailed molecular sequencing, and this is facilitated with the companion ALLELE protocol. To evaluate feasibility of this approach, we assessed the status of this ongoing trial. RESULTS Since INSIGhT was activated 4.3 years ago, it has expanded to include 12 sites across the United States. A total of 247 patients have been enrolled. Randomization probabilities have been repeatedly adjusted over time based upon early PFS results to alter the randomization ratio from standard 1:1:1:1 randomization. All three arms have completed accrual and efficacy estimates are available based upon comparison to the common control arm in context of relevant biomarkers. There are 87 patients alive and in follow-up, and there are ongoing plans to add additional arms to evaluate further treatments in the future. CONCLUSION The INSIGhT trial demonstrates that a multi-center Bayesian adaptive platform trial is a feasible and effective approach to help prioritize therapies and biomarkers for newly diagnosed GBM. The trial has maintained robust accrual, and the simultaneous testing of multiple agents, sharing a common control arm and adaptive randomization serve as features to increase trial efficiency relative to traditional clinical trial designs.

Abstract BACKGROUND EGFR is amplified in over 50% of glioblastoma and 20-30% have EGFRvIII mutations. Neratinib is a potent inhibitor of EGFR/HER2 approved for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. To efficiently evaluate the potential impact of neratinib on overall survival (OS) in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, neratinib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between neratinib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). We report preliminary results for the neratinib arm. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant neratinib (240 mg daily). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS. Association between neratinib efficacy and EGFR amplification was also investigated. RESULTS There were 144 patients (70 control; 74 neratinib). Neratinib was reasonably well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was compared (HR 0.84; p=0.38, logrank test – not significant) between the neratinib (median 6.05 months) and control (median 5.82 months) arms. For patients EGFR pathway activation the PFS HR was 0.53 (p-value=0.03 – significant, median PFS: neratinib, 6.21 months, control, 5.26 months). However, there was no significant improvement in OS in EGFR amplified/mutated patients (HR 1.05; p-value 0.87) between neratinib (median 14.2) compared to the control arm (median 14.6). CONCLUSION Neratinib prolonged PFS in the EGFR positive subpopulation but there was no overall PFS benefit, or any OS improvement.

Abstract Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as “recruiting” or “not yet recruiting” as of February 2021.

Abstract Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for many hard-to-treat cancers but has yet to produce significant improvement in outcomes for patients with glioblastoma. This reflects the multiple and unique mechanisms of immune evasion and escape in this highly heterogeneous tumor. Glioblastoma engenders profound local and systemic immunosuppression and is remarkably effective at inducing T-cell dysfunction, posing a challenge to any immunotherapy-based approach. To overcome these mechanisms, multiple disparate modes of immune-oriented therapy will be required. However, designing trials that can evaluate these combinatorial approaches requires careful consideration. In this review, we explore the immunotherapy resistance mechanisms that have been encountered to date and how combinatorial approaches may address these. We also describe the unique aspects of trial design in both preclinical and clinical settings and consider endpoints and markers of response best suited for an intervention involving multiple agents.

2014 Background: The cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway is activated in most glioblastomas. Abemaciclib is a potent CDK4/6 inhibitor with good brain penetration approved for HR+/HER2- breast cancer. In order to efficiently evaluate the potential impact of abemaciclib on overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, abemaciclib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between abemaciclib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective arms were discontinued and new arms added by protocol amendment. We report preliminary results for the abemaciclib arm which has completed accrual. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide at standard doses or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant abemaciclib (150-200 mg orally BID). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS which was assessed using the log-rank test estimated via the Kaplan Meier method using a type I error of 5%. The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a cox proportional hazards model. Association between abemaciclib efficacy and cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway genomic alterations was also investigated. Results: There were 142 patients (69 control; 73 treated with abemaciclib). Abemaciclib was generally well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was significantly longer (HR 0.67; p = 0.03, logrank test) with abemaciclib (median 6.54 months) compared to the control arm (median 5.88 months). For patients with activation of the CDK4 pathway the PFS HR was 0.64 (p-value = 0.04). However, there was no significant improvement in overall survival (HR 0.9; p-value > 0.05) between abemaciclib (median 15.5) compared to the control arm (median 15.5). Conclusions: Abemaciclib was well-tolerated and prolonged PFS but there is no evidence of an overall survival improvement compared to standard radiochemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

2006 Background: Adaptive randomization adjusts enrollment rates based upon early trial results, which can allow for decreased enrollment for therapies less likely to meet the primary endpoint of a trial. CC-115, a CNS-penetrant, oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin kinase (mTOR) and deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), was evaluated in the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. As CC-115 was discontinued due to concerns about toxicity and unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio, we sought to investigate the impact of adaptive randomization in its testing. Methods: In INSIGhT, adults with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma and available genomic data are adaptively randomized to an experimental arm or the control arm of standard radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients randomized to CC-115 received it (10mg po BID) with radiotherapy and as adjuvant monotherapy, and a safety lead-in 3+3 design was used for this arm. By simulating the INSIGhT trial with standard uniform randomization, we estimated the reduction of enrollment rate and sample size of the CC-115 arm that was attributable to adaptive randomization. Results: Twelve patients were randomized to CC-115; 58% (n = 7) patients had possible treatment-related CTCAE grade > 3 toxicity. Compared to the control arm, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS, HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32-1.36, p = 0.3) or overall survival (OS, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43-2.03, p = 0.8). Based on early PFS results, randomization probability to CC-115 decreased from 25% to 16%. At the time of the CC-115 arm closure, 14% of enrolled INSIGhT patients had been randomized to this arm. Compared to average expected enrollment by standard randomization, the use of adaptive randomization decreased the number of patients randomized to CC-115 by 50% (12 patients vs. 18 patients [95% CI 11-25 patients]). Conclusions: The INSIGhT trial, designed with adaptive randomization, facilitated more efficient testing of CC-115 and decreased the number of patients allocated to the CC-115 arm relative to a standard randomization design. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.