Ellingson, Benjamin M.

TPS2103 Background: Treatment for newly diagnosed IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 3, is based on the results of the CATNON study, demonstrating benefit of radiotherapy followed by 12 months of adjuvant temozolomide. While temozolomide and radiotherapy significantly improved survival, the prognosis for these patients remains limited and more effective therapies are required. This trial will evaluate the benefit of the addition of the IDH1 and IDH-2 inhibitor vorasidenib to adjuvant temozolomide versus placebo following standard radiotherapy to evaluate possible improvement in outcomes. Methods: Alliance A072301 (NCT07215910) is a multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 randomized study to determine if the addition of vorasidenib to adjuvant temozolomide significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS), based on blinded central review in patients with newly diagnosed, IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 3. Key inclusion criteria include age ≥ 12 years old, histological confirmation of astrocytoma (absence of 1p/19q codeletion), WHO grade 3, presence of any IDH mutation, plan for radiation and chemotherapy and surgery within 6 months. The presence of CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, spinal or leptomeningeal disease, as well as prior chemotherapy, cranial irradiation or IDH inhibitor therapy, is exclusionary. 408 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive vorasidenib 40 mg or placebo daily with 12 cycles of temozolomide following radiotherapy and then continued as monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors include age (< 40 years old vs ≥ 40 years old) and residual disease (< 2 cm vs ≥ 2 cm). Tumor assessments with MRI will be every three months for the first two years, every four months for the next two years and then every six months thereafter as per blinded independent central review using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) 2.0 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include PFS by local review, time to next treatment, safety and tolerability, quality of life measures. Exploratory measures will include seizure frequency. The trial will have 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.625 with one-sided type I error rate of 0.025. Enrollment for the trial commenced February 2026. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

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 Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has emerged as a valuable liquid biopsy source for glioma biomarker discovery and validation. CSF produced within the ventricles circulates through the subarachnoid space, where the composition of glioma-derived analytes is influenced by the proximity and anatomical location of sampling relative to tumor, in addition to underlying tumor biology. The substantial gradients observed between lumbar and intracranial CSF compartments for tumor-derived analytes underscore the importance of sampling site selection. Moreover, radiographic features, such as tumor-CSF contact and blood-brain barrier disruption, are critical covariates that may affect biomarker detection and the abundance of plasma-derived analytes in CSF, respectively. Longitudinal intracranial CSF sampling, enabled by access devices like Ommaya reservoirs, may offer a window into treatment response and disease progression, though variability in analyte yield, sample volumes, and the dynamic effects of surgical resection pose challenges. This review critically evaluates the anatomic, radiographic, and longitudinal factors, or “time-space continuum,” that impact glioma CSF biomarker abundance. Practical considerations for longitudinal CSF biobanking, including access device placement and collection, are also reviewed. Key takeaways and recommendations for CSF glioma biomarker discovery and validation are provided as a “hitchhiker’s guide” based on our collective experience, along with resources for investigators aiming to develop CSF biobanking at their institutions.

The Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance Profile for dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI and its longitudinal claims for the precision of a DSC MRI–derived quantitative imaging biomarker to assess the relative cerebral blood volume changes in gliomas are summarized.

Abstract GBM AGILE(NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies against a common control. Paxalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, is the 3rd arm in the trial to conclude evaluation. METHODS Paxalisib was open to patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and recurrent (RD) glioblastoma, with three possible signatures: NDU, RD, and All(NDU+RD). Arm enrollment occurred Dec2020 through May2022. Control patients were enrolled from study initiation (July2019) and were treated with temozolomide(NDU) or lomustine(RD). GBM AGILE investigational arms have 1 or 2 stages, with adaptive randomization in stage 1 and fixed randomization if arms continue to stage 2. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio(HR) of Arm/Control. Efficacy goal is final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR&lt;1.00 in combined Stages. An Arm continues to Stage 2 if Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8. An Arm stops accruing in Stage 1 if it reaches maximal sample size(N) or does not meet a minimum efficacy threshold (PP&lt;0.25 for all signatures when N&gt;50). Clinical cut-off is 12 months after accrual stops. The maximum N for paxalisib was approximately 150(Stage 1) and 50(Stage 2). RESULTS After paxalisib reached &gt;150 patients in Stage 1, accrual stopped [Paxalisib/control N 54/75(NDU), 100/188(RD)]. Neither PP thresholds for moving to Stage 2 nor stopping for minimum efficacy were met. Following an unplanned public disclosure that the arm did not continue to stage 2, clinical cut-off for final analysis (planned May2023) was updated to public disclosure date (August2022). At final analysis mean HRs were 0.89(NDU), 1.25(RD), 1.05(All), probabilities of HR&lt;1.00 of 0.72(NDU), 0.076(RD), 0.398(All). Model estimated median OS paxalisib/control (months) were 14.77/13.84(NDU) and 8.58/10.06(RD). CONCLUSION Paxalisib did not show survival benefit over cumulative control in final primary analysis; additional secondary analyses are being considered. GBM AGILE continues to rapidly and efficiently assess therapies in ND and RD glioblastoma.

Importance The prognosis for patients with glioblastoma is poor following standard therapy with surgical resection, radiation, temozolomide, and tumor-treating fields. Objectives To evaluate the combination of veliparib and temozolomide in glioblastoma based on preclinical data demonstrating significant chemosensitizing effects of the polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase 1/2 inhibitor veliparib when combined with temozolomide. Design, Setting, and Participants Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with MGMT promoter hypermethylation who had completed concomitant radiation and temozolomide were enrolled between December 15, 2014, and December 15, 2018, in this Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trial. The data for this analysis were locked on April 21, 2023. Interventions Patients were randomized and treated with standard adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m 2 orally, days 1-5) combined with either placebo or veliparib (40 mg orally, twice daily, days 1-7) for 6 cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point for the phase 3 portion of the trial was overall survival (OS). Results There were 322 patients randomized during the phase 2 accrual period and an additional 125 patients randomized to complete the phase 3 accrual, for a total of 447 patients in the final phase 3 analysis. The median (range) age for patients was 60 (20-85) years and 190 patients (42.5%) were female. The median OS was 24.8 months (90% CI, 22.6-27.7) for the placebo arm and 28.1 months (90% CI, 24.3-33.3) for the veliparib arm ( P = .17). The difference in survival did not meet the prespecified efficacy end point. However, there was a separation of the survival curves that favored the veliparib arm over 24 to 48 months of follow-up. The experimental combination was well tolerated with an acceptable elevation in grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance This trial found that adding veliparib to adjuvant temozolomide did not significantly extend OS in patients with newly diagnosed, MGMT -hypermethylated glioblastoma. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152982

Abstract BACKGROUND Preclinical studies have demonstrated that IDH1-mutant (IDHmt) gliomas harbor a BRCAness phenotype with a defect in homologous recombination that confers PARP inhibitor sensitivity. METHODS The phase II component of ABTC 1801 examined the efficacy of the combination of pamiparib (BeiGene BGB-290) with low dose metronomic temozolomide in recurrent IDHmt grade 2 and 3 gliomas. In this two-stage design, Arm A enrolled patients who had failed two lines and Arm B a single line of alkylator therapy. Pamiparib and temozolomide doses based on phase I results was 60 mg BID and 20 mg daily. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS 39 patients (Arm A 15, Arm B 24) enrolled in the phase II. Median age was 45 (range: 25-69), 56% male, and median KPS 90. 72% of tumors were MGMT methylated. There were no confirmed responses in Arm A and one in Arm B; neither arm met the threshold for additional accrual. One-third of subjects discontinued treatment for reasons other than progressive disease. Estimated median PFS was 5.8 months in Arm A and 11.3 months in Arm B. Seven subjects (Arm A 3, Arm B 4) developed DLT during treatment. Grade 3+ toxicity was principally hematologic; 9 patients had grade 3 anemia, 7 grade 3 and 3 grade 4 neutropenia, and 3 grade 3 thrombocytopenia. In enhancing and non-enhancing tumors from 8 surgical arm patients, median unbound drug tumor/plasma ratios were 0.98 and 0.92, respectively; and median unbound pamiparib tumor concentrations were 209 and 188 nmol/L (or nmol/kg), respectively, which were &gt;20-fold the in vitro IC50 for PARP inhibition. CONCLUSIONS While pamiparib appeared to achieve sufficient pharmacologically active concentrations in both enhancing and non-enhancing tumors, combination with temozolomide did not produce a meaningful ORR in IDHmt recurrent gliomas. Cumulative hematologic toxicity was substantial.

PURPOSE 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 challenges emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. METHODS Informed by data from studies evaluating the different criteria, updates to the RANO criteria are proposed (RANO 2.0). RESULTS 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 postradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than the postsurgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for comparison with subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks after radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, are required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for the evaluation of treatment 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 (two-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type glioblastoma, the nonenhancing disease will no longer be evaluated except when assessing response to antiangiogenic agents. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant nonenhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and nonenhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION The revised RANO 2.0 criteria refine response assessment in gliomas.

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 Patients with H3K27M-mutant diffuse midline glioma (DMG) have no proven effective therapies. ONC201 has recently demonstrated efficacy in these patients, but the mechanism behind this finding remains unknown. We assessed clinical outcomes, tumor sequencing, and tissue/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) correlate samples from patients treated in two completed multisite clinical studies. Patients treated with ONC201 following initial radiation but prior to recurrence demonstrated a median overall survival of 21.7 months, whereas those treated after recurrence had a median overall survival of 9.3 months. Radiographic response was associated with increased expression of key tricarboxylic acid cycle–related genes in baseline tumor sequencing. ONC201 treatment increased 2-hydroxyglutarate levels in cultured H3K27M-DMG cells and patient CSF samples. This corresponded with increases in repressive H3K27me3 in vitro and in human tumors accompanied by epigenetic downregulation of cell cycle regulation and neuroglial differentiation genes. Overall, ONC201 demonstrates efficacy in H3K27M-DMG by disrupting integrated metabolic and epigenetic pathways and reversing pathognomonic H3K27me3 reduction. Significance: The clinical, radiographic, and molecular analyses included in this study demonstrate the efficacy of ONC201 in H3K27M-mutant DMG and support ONC201 as the first monotherapy to improve outcomes in H3K27M-mutant DMG beyond radiation. Mechanistically, ONC201 disrupts integrated metabolic and epigenetic pathways and reverses pathognomonic H3K27me3 reduction. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2293