Nayak, Lakshmi

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 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.

7506 Background: Optimal consolidative therapy for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is not defined. Avoidance of whole brain radiation may reduce risk of neurotoxicity. Non-radiation consolidative options include myeloablative chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) or non-myeloablative chemotherapy. Methods: This is a randomized phase 2, National Clinical Trials Network study of induction methotrexate (MTX) (8 g/m2 days 1, 15), temozolomide (TMZ) (150-200 mg/m2 D7-11), and rituximab (RTX) (C1 D3, 10, 17, 24 and C2 D3, 10 ) in four 28-day cycles followed by one cycle of cytarabine (ARA-C) (2 g/m2 BID, D1, 2) (MTRA). After induction, patients (pts) received consolidation with thiotepa (5 mg/kg BID, D -5, -4) plus carmustine (400 mg/m2, day -6) and ASCT (Arm A) or one cycle of ARA-C (2 g/m2 BID, D1-4) plus infusional etoposide (40 mg/kg over 96h) (Arm B). Pts were stratified on age and performance status and randomized 1:1 before induction. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization. With 110 pts, there was 84% power to detect an improvement in PFS using a log-rank test (1-sided α= 10%), assuming a median PFS of 3 months for pts who progress during induction, and a median PFS of 2 years (yrs) for Arm B and 4.5 yrs for Arm A consolidation. This report includes the results for the primary endpoint analysis. Results: 113 pts (median age 61 yrs, range 33-75) were randomized (Arm A: 57, Arm B: 56) across 27 centers. 108 eligible pts who received induction therapy were included in the primary endpoint analysis (Arm A: 54, Arm B: 54). 72/108 pts started consolidation and 70/72 completed consolidation per protocol (Arm A: 36, Arm B: 34). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, median PFS from randomization was 6 yrs (95% CI 3.9-not reached) in Arm A vs 2.4 yrs (95% CI 0.6-not reached) in Arm B (p = 0.02). However, more pts randomized to Arm B went off treatment before consolidation due to progression or death (28% vs 11%, p = 0.05). PFS landmarked at start of consolidation demonstrated a trend for improved PFS favoring Arm A (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25-1.36; p = 0.21). Median OS was not reached in either arm, and 3-yr estimates were 83% (95% CI 69-91; Arm A) vs 72% (95% CI 57-82; Arm B). Toxicities were similar between arms with no treatment-related mortality during consolidation. Conclusions: MTRA induction followed by myeloablative consolidation (Arm A) had improved PFS vs MTRA induction followed by non-myeloablative consolidation (Arm B), though more progressions or deaths leading to treatment discontinuation prior to consolidation in Arm B were noted. Both consolidation regimens were well-tolerated with encouraging PFS and OS in newly-diagnosed PCNSL. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01511562.

Abstract Background The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Methods A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. Results A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). Conclusion Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

Abstract BACKGROUND CC-115 is an oral, CNS-penetrant, selective inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin kinase (mTOR) and deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK). Both targets are important in glioblastoma; PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling is hyperactive in most glioblastomas, and DNA-PK is integral to repair of radiotherapy-mediated DNA damage. To investigate CC-115 in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and explore potential genomic biomarker associations, CC-115 was evaluated in the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial, an adaptive platform trial designed to efficiently test experimental agents. METHODS Adults with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma, with genomic data available, are eligible for this ongoing trial. Patients are adaptively randomized to one of several experimental arms or the control arm: standard radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Patients randomized to CC-115 (10mg po BID) received it concurrently with radiotherapy and as adjuvant monotherapy. As the first in-human use of CC-115 with radiation, a safety lead-in 3 + 3 design was used. RESULTS Twelve patients were randomized to CC-115; seven patients had possible treatment-related CTCAE grade > 3 toxicity, including four pre-specified dose-limiting toxicities: liver function abnormality (n=1), hyperlipidemia (n=1), lipase elevation (n=1) and cerebral edema (n=1). There was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS, median 4.2 months [CC-115] vs. 5.2 months, p=0.9) or OS (median 10.1 months [CC-115] vs. 14.5 months, p=0.9) compared to the 50 patients randomized to the control arm. Based on early PFS results, randomization probability to CC-115 decreased from 25% to < 10% at time of the trial arm closure. CONCLUSION Concurrent and adjuvant CC-115 was associated with toxicity and failed to improve PFS or OS. The INSIGhT trial design allowed for more efficient testing of CC-115, decreasing patients and resources allocated to a therapy that was discontinued due to concerns about toxicity and unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio.

Abstract 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 ER/PR/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) without temozolomide. Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS. Association between abemaciclib efficacy and cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway genomic alterations was also investigated. RESULTS There were 123 patients (50 control; 73 treated with abemaciclib). Abemaciclib was generally well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was significantly longer (p=0.03, logrank test) with abemaciclib (median 6.31 months 95% CI [5.29, 8.18]) compared to the control arm (5.16 months 95% CI [4.37, 6.28]). 28/50 control and 36/73 abemaciclib patients remain alive. CONCLUSION Preliminary analysis suggests that abemaciclib increases PFS compared to control. Updated toxicity, PFS and survival data and potential genomic biomarker associations will be presented.

Primary central nervous system lymphomas (PCNSLs) are rare cancers of the central nervous system (CNS) and are predominantly diffuse large B-cell lymphomas of the activated B-cell (ABC) subtype. They typically present in the sixth and seventh decade of life, with the highest incidence among patients aged >75 years. Although many different regimens have demonstrated efficacy in newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory PCNSL, there have been few randomized prospective trials, and most recommendations and treatment decisions are based on single-arm phase II trials or even retrospective studies. High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX; 3–8 g/m2) is the backbone of preferred standard induction regimens. Various effective regimens with different toxicity profiles can be considered that combine other chemotherapies and/or rituximab with HD-MTX, but there is currently no consensus for a single preferred regimen. There is controversy about the role of various consolidation therapies for patients who respond to HD-MTX–based induction therapy. For patients with relapsed or refractory PCNSL who previously experienced response to HD-MTX, repeat treatment with HD-MTX–based therapy can be considered depending on the timing of recurrence. Other more novel and less toxic regimens have been developed that show efficacy in recurrent disease, including ibrutinib, or lenalidomide ± rituximab. There is uniform agreement to delay or avoid whole-brain radiation therapy due to concerns for significant neurotoxicity if a reasonable systemic treatment option exists. This article aims to provide a clinically practical approach to PCNSL, including special considerations for older patients and those with impaired renal function. The benefits and risks of HD-MTX or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation versus other, better tolerated strategies are also discussed. In all settings, the preferred treatment is always enrollment in a clinical trial if one is available.

8042 Background: Optimal consolidative therapy for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is not defined. Avoidance of whole brain radiation may reduce risk of neurotoxicity. Non-radiation consolidative options include myeloablative chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) or non-myeloablative chemotherapy. Methods: This is a randomized phase 2, National Clinical Trials Network study of induction methotrexate (MTX) (8 g/m2days 1, 15), temozolomide (TMZ) (150-200 mg/m2 D7-11), and rituximab (RTX) (C1 D3, 10, 17, 24 and C2 D3, 10) in four 28-day cycles followed by one cycle of cytarabine (ARA-C) (2 g/m2 BID, D1, 2) (MTRA). Following induction, patients (pts) received consolidation with thiotepa (5 mg/kg BID, D -5, -4) plus carmustine (400 mg/m2, day -6) and ASCT (Arm A) or one cycle of ARA-C (2 g/m2 BID, D1-4) plus infusional etoposide (40 mg/kg over 96h) (Arm B). The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS), designed to compare consolidation regimens. This report describes the results of the 5 cycles of induction therapy. Results: 113 pts (median age 61 years, range 33-75) were randomized (Arm A: 57, Arm B: 56) across 27 centers. 108 eligible pts who received induction therapy were evaluated. 36 pts (33.3%) did not proceed to consolidation, mainly due to disease progression (17), pt withdrawal (8), or adverse events including death (6). Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 12 pts (11.1%) during induction. Dose modifications of MTX were required in 75% of pts and 63.3% of cycles, mainly due to renal adjustments. Dose delays of MTX were required in 52.8% of pts and 22.2% of cycles. Overall response rate (CR, CRu, PR) at the end of induction was 65.7% (95% CI, 56%, 74.6%). Conclusions: While MTRA is feasible and active a significant proportion of pts did not receive consolidation, supporting the need to develop more effective induction strategies. Clinical trial information: NCT01511562 .