Brastianos, Priscilla K.

PURPOSE To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Abstract PURPOSE Standard of care for craniopharyngiomas is surgery with or without radiotherapy (RT). Cohort A of Alliance A071601 evaluated the efficacy of BRAF/MEK inhibition with vemurafenib/cobimetinib in patients with previously untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCP), which carry the BRAF V600E mutation. Cohort B is currently enrolling patients with recurrence after RT. In a correlative analysis, we examined changes in RT volumes after BRAF/MEK therapy in Cohort A. METHODS Previously unirradiated patients with BRAF-mutated PCP were treated with vemurafenib/cobimetinib. Sixteen patients had scans available before starting vemurafenib/cobimetinib (“pre-therapy”) and after completing therapy (“post-therapy”). Two patients went off study treatment after 8 and 9 days due to side-effects and were excluded for this analysis. Gross target volumes (GTV) were contoured on pre-therapy and post-therapy scans. On post-therapy scans, an additional target comprising gross disease and at-risk regions for microscopic residual disease (GTV-micro) was defined and considered the treatment volume. Clinical target volume (CTV) was a 5-mm uniform expansion on pre-therapy GTV and post-therapy GTV-micro. Volumes were independently reviewed by two radiation oncologists. Changes in volumes from pre- versus post-therapy were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS In 14 patients evaluated, 57% were female and median age at enrollment was 49.5 years (range 33-83). Median time on treatment was 8.9 months (range 4.0-18.0). Median GTV pre-therapy was 3.8 mL (range 0.2-23.4) versus 0.3 mL (range 0.0-3.2) post-therapy (p=0.0001) and 1.7 mL (range 0.1-8.0) post-therapy GTV-micro (p=0.0001). Median CTV pre-therapy was 13.7 mL (range 2.8-51.8) versus 9.1 mL (range 2.2-27.5) post-therapy (p=0.0001). All tumors abutted the optic chiasm pre-therapy, only 6 did post-therapy. CONCLUSIONS Vemurafenib/cobimetinib resulted in smaller RT volumes. BRAF/MEK inhibitors could reduce RT volumes and spare dose to surrounding normal structures. Enrollment to Cohort B of Alliance A071601 should be considered for patients with recurrent tumors after RT. SUPPORT https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

AbstractBackgroundWith increasing molecular analyses of meningiomas, there is a need to harmonize language used to capture clinical data across centers to ensure that molecular alterations are appropriately linked to clinical variables of interest. Here the International Consortium on Meningiomas presents a set of core and supplemental meningioma-specific common data elements (CDEs) to facilitate comparative and pooled analyses.MethodsThe generation of CDEs followed the 4-phase process similar to other National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) CDE projects: discovery, internal validation, external validation, and distribution.ResultsThe CDEs were organized into patient- and tumor-level modules. In total, 17 core CDEs (10 patient level and 7 tumor level) as well as 14 supplemental CDEs (7 patient level and 7 tumor level) were defined and described. These CDEs are now made publicly available for dissemination and adoption.ConclusionsCDEs provide a framework for discussion in the neuro-oncology community that will facilitate data-sharing for collaborative research projects and aid in developing a common language for comparative and pooled analyses. The meningioma-specific CDEs presented here are intended to be dynamic parameters that evolve with time and The Consortium welcomes international feedback for further refinement and implementation of these CDEs.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%–12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

2000 Background: Craniopharyngiomas, a rare brain tumor along the pituitary-hypothalamic axis, can cause significant clinical sequelae. Surgery and radiation, the only effective treatments, can cause significant morbidity. Genetic analysis of craniopharyngiomas revealed that 95% of papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCP) have BRAF V600E mutations (Brastianos et al. Nature Genetics 2014). We evaluated the efficacy of BRAF/MEK inhibition in patients (pts) with previously untreated PCP. Methods: Eligible pts without prior radiation whose PCP screened positively for BRAF mutations were treated with oral vemurafenib/cobimetinib in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint of response rate (RR) based on centrally determined volumetric data was evaluated in 16 pts, where a partial response was defined as >20% decrease in volume. This single arm, Simon two-stage phase 2 trial had 89% power to detect a true RR of at least 30% (vs. the null RR 5%; alpha=0.04). In this design, 3 or more observed volumetric responses in 16 evaluable pts would be considered promising activity. Results: In the 16 pts evaluated, 56% were female, and the median age was 49.5 years. Median follow-up was 22 months (95% CI: 16-26.5) and median number of treatment cycles was 8. Three patients progressed after therapy was discontinued and none have died. Based on volumetric response criteria, 14 of 15 pts with volumetric data available for central review had response to therapy (93%; 95% CI: 68% to 99.8%). Of 16 patients evaluable based on local review, 15 had response to therapy (93.75%; 95% CI: 70% to 99.8%). The median tumor reduction was -83% (range: -52% to -99%). The one nonresponder received 2 days of treatment before coming off therapy due to toxicity. Median progression-free survival was not reached. Grade 3 toxicities at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 12 pts (rash in 6 pts). Grade 4 toxicities were observed in two pts: hyperglycemia (n=1) and increased CPK (n=1). Three pts discontinued treatment for adverse events. Conclusions: Vemurafenib/cobimetinib resulted in an objective response in all pts who received 1 or more cycles of therapy. Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP and warrants further evaluation in larger studies. A second arm of this study is enrolling pts with progressive PCP after prior radiotherapy. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180868 (NRG); Genentech; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT03224767.

TPS2573 Background: Brain metastases, most commonly derived from melanoma, lung and breast cancers, are the most common brain tumor, with approximately 200,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States. Median survival is on the order of months. For patients with clinically symptomatic brain metastases, approximately half succumb due to intracranial progression. In preclinical work, we demonstrated that brain metastases and primary tumors are often genetically distinct with frequent alterations in the CDK and PI3K pathway (Brastianos, Carter et al. Cancer Discovery 2015). Methods: We are currently accruing to a prospective multi-arm phase II study of CDK, PI3K/mTOR, and NTRK/ROS1 inhibitors in patients with brain metastases harboring alterations associated with sensitivity to these inhibitors (abemaciclib, paxalisib and entrectinib), respectively. Patients with new, recurrent or progressive brain metastases are eligible for this trial. Previously obtained tissue from brain metastases and extracranial sites (primary or extracranial metastases) are screened for the presence of these alterations, and if present in both tumor sites, patients will receive the appropriate corresponding targeted treatment. Screening is carried out with the SNaPshot NGS assay, which is a fully validated clinical test designed and developed at the MGH Center for Integrated Diagnostics. The primary endpoint of response rate (RR) in the central nervous system as per RANO criteria will be evaluated separately for each inhibitor, stratified by histology within each arm. There will be 21 evaluable patients assigned to each of the CDK and PI3K inhibitor and tumor type cohorts (breast, lung and other) and 10 patients assigned to the NTRK/ROS1 inhibitor cohort (lung) for a total of 136 evaluable patients. Although current systemic therapy for brain metastases is often ineffective, we hypothesize that targeted therapies will demonstrate efficacy in patients harboring the appropriate mutations. This study represents a novel individualized therapeutic approach in brain metastases, a disease with a critical need for effective therapy. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Genentech, Kazia Therapeutics Limited, Eli Lilly; Clinical trial information: NCT03994796 .

2502 Background: Patients with progressive or recurrent meningiomas have limited treatment options. Clinical trials of systemic therapies for meningiomas have failed to demonstrate benefit. FAK inhibition has a synthetic lethal relationship with NF2 loss. Given the predominance of NF2 mutations in meningiomas, we evaluated the efficacy of GSK2256098, a FAK inhibitor, as part of the first genomically-driven phase II study in recurrent or progressive grade I-III meningiomas. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) whose tumors screened positively for NF2 mutations were treated with GSK2256098 750mg po bid until progressive disease in 2 separate cohorts: grade I or II/III meningiomas. Two co-primary endpoints were used: progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6) and response rate (RR) by Macdonald criteria; per study design, the trial would be declared positive if either endpoint was met. RR was evaluated across the overall cohort; PFS6 was evaluated within each subgroup. Historical benchmark data was obtained from Kaley et al. Neuro Oncol 2014. In the grade I group, 12 evaluable pts provided >79% power to detect a PFS6 rate >65% (vs. null hypothesis of 25%; alpha=0.014). In the grade II/III group, 24 evaluable pts provided >85% power to detect a PFS6 >41.5% (vs. null 15%; alpha=0.02). The threshold for promising results for PFS6 was: 7+/12(grade I) and 8+/24(grade II/III) pts. For RR, 36 evaluable pts provided >94% power to detect RR >20% (vs. null 2.5%; alpha= 0.012). Results: Of 322 pts screened for all mutation cohorts of the study, 36 eligible and evaluable pts with NF2 mutations were enrolled. Across all grades, one pt had a partial response and 24 had stable disease as best response to treatment. In Grade I pts, the observed PFS6 rate was 83% (10/12 pts; 95% CI: 52-98%). In Grade II/III pts, the observed PFS6 rate was 33% (8/24 pts; 95% CI: 16-55%). The study met PFS6 efficacy endpoint both for the Grade I and the Grade II/III cohorts. Treatment was well tolerated. Only 7 patients had a maximum grade-3 adverse event that was at least possibly related to treatment; toxicities across these pts included: proteinuria (2), rash (1), pain (1), ALT (1), AST (1), cholecystitis (1), hypertriglyceridemia (1), apraxia (1), and lymphopenia (1) with no grade 4 or 5 events. Conclusions: GSK2256098 had excellent tolerability andresulted in an improved PFS6 rate in pts with recurrent or progressive NF2-mutated meningiomas. Trial endpoint was met. FAK inhibition warrants further evaluation in this patient population. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT02523014 .

AbstractA recent meeting was held on March 22, 2019, among the FDA, clinical scientists, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocacy groups to discuss challenges and potential solutions for increasing development of therapeutics for central nervous system metastases. A key issue identified at this meeting was the need for consistent tumor measurement for reliable tumor response assessment, including the first step of standardized image acquisition with an MRI protocol that could be implemented in multicenter studies aimed at testing new therapeutics. This document builds upon previous consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) in high-grade gliomas and defines a protocol for brain metastases (BTIP-BM) that addresses unique challenges associated with assessment of CNS metastases. The “minimum standard” recommended pulse sequences include: (i) parameter matched pre- and post-contrast inversion recovery (IR)–prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (IR-GRE); (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo acquired after injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent and before post-contrast 3D T1-weighted images; (iii) axial 2D or 3D T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery; (iv) axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images; and (v) post-contrast 2D T1-weighted spin echo images for increased lesion conspicuity. Recommended sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5T and 3T MR systems. An “ideal” protocol is also provided, which replaces IR-GRE with 3D TSE T1-weighted imaging pre- and post-gadolinium, and is best performed at 3T, for which dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion is included. Recommended perfusion parameters are given.