Vogelbaum, Michael A.

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 BACKGROUND The original 3-arm CODEL design included a radiotherapy (RT)-alone control arm, an RT plus temozolomide (TMZ) arm, and an exploratory TMZ-alone arm. We report the analysis involving patients treated per the initial design. METHODS Adults (18+ years) with newly-diagnosed 1p/19q codeleted WHO grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to RT (5940 cGy) alone (Arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant TMZ (Arm B); or TMZ alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was OS, Arm A vs. B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and PFS, comparing pooled RT arms with the TMZ-alone arm. RESULTS 36 patients were randomized equally to the three arms. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients had progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) patients on the RT arms. PFS was shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared to RT-treated patients (HR=3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; p=0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) of RT-treated patients. OS did not statistically differ between arms, although this comparison was underpowered. After adjustment for IDH status (mutated vs. wildtype) in a Cox regression model, with IDH status and RT treatment status as co-variables (Arm C vs pooled A and B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR= 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; p=0.011), and OS differences remained non-significant ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI 0.58, 13.22, p=0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42% and 33% patients (Arms A, B and C, respectively). Neurocognitive assessments, comparing baseline and 3 month timepoints, showed no significant differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS TMZ-alone treated patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the pooled RT arms, which remained significant when adjusting for IDH status. CODEL has been redesigned to compare the efficacy and toxicity of RT+PCV versus RT+TMZ. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887146. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

Abstract Background We report the analysis involving patients treated on the initial CODEL design. Methods Adults (&gt;18) with newly diagnosed 1p/19q World Health Organization (WHO) grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to radiotherapy (RT; 5940 centigray ) alone (arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) (arm B); or TMZ alone (arm C). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), arm A versus B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS), comparing pooled RT arms versus TMZ-alone arm. Results Thirty-six patients were randomized equally. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) on the RT arms. PFS was significantly shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared with RT patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; P = 0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) on the RT arms. OS did not statistically differ between arms (comparison underpowered). After adjustment for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status (mutated/wildtype) in a Cox regression model utilizing IDH and RT treatment status as covariables (arm C vs pooled arms A + B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; P = 0.011), but not OS ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI: 0.58, 13.22, P = 0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42%, and 33% of patients (arms A, B, and C). There were no differences between arms in neurocognitive decline comparing baseline to 3 months. Conclusions TMZ-alone patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the RT arms. The ongoing CODEL trial has been redesigned to compare RT + PCV versus RT + TMZ.

Abstract Glioblastoma is a devastating disease with poor prognosis. Few effective chemotherapeutics are currently available, and much effort has been expended to identify new drugs capable of slowing tumor progression. The phase 0 trial design was developed to facilitate early identification of promising agents for cancer that should undergo accelerated approval. This design features an early in-human study that enrolls a small number of patients who receive subtherapeutic doses of medication with the goals of describing pharmacokinetics through drug blood level measurements and determining intratumoral concentrations of the investigational compound as well as pharmacodynamics by studying the biochemical and physiological effects of drugs. In neuro-oncology, however, the presence of the blood–brain barrier and difficulty in obtaining brain tumor tissue warrant a separate set of considerations. In this paper, we critically reviewed the protocols used in all brain tumor related in-human phase 0 and phase 0–like (“window of opportunity”) studies between 1993 and 2018, as well as ongoing clinical trials, and identified major challenges in trial design as applied to central nervous system tumors that include surgical specimen collection and storage, brain tumor drug level analysis, and confirmation of drug action. We therefore propose that phase 0 trials in neuro-oncology should include (i) only patients in whom a resection of the tumor is planned, (ii) use of clinical doses of an investigational agent, (iii) tissue sampling from enhancing and non-enhancing portions of the tumor, and (iv) assessment of drug-specific target effects. Standardization of clinical protocols for phase 0/window of opportunity studies can help accelerate the development of effective treatments for glioblastoma.

LBA2010 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June, 2, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

1 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June, 2, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

1517 Background: In a previous report, we showed in patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas (AOs) and mixed anaplastic oligoastrocytomas (MAOs) that temozolomide (TMZ) can be given concurrently with radiation therapy (RT) with acceptable toxicity. We have now evaluated the efficacy of this regimen and correlated durability of response with tumor 1p/19q genotype. Methods: A phase II study was performed to evaluate the use of pre-RT TMZ followed by concurrent RT and TMZ in patients with newly diagnosed AO or MAO. The primary endpoint was to determine the pre-RT TMZ six-month progression rate, and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and overall survival. Results: 40 eligible patients were entered into the trial. Thirty-two patients completed 6 months of pre-RT TMZ and concurrent RT and TMZ. Of the remaining eight patients, 4 withdrew due to toxicity and 4 other patients withdrew from study without evidence of toxicity or pre-RT progression. 1p/19q data are available in 37 cases; 23 tumors had loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of both 1p and 19q (double-deleted) while 14 tumors had LOH of either 1p or 19q (n = 3), or no LOH (n = 11). To date, 11 patients have experienced tumor progression; 1p/19q data are available for 10 of these cases (2 are double-deleted (2/23 = 9%), 8 have at least one intact chromosome (8/14 = 57%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates that progression free survival is significantly better for the double-deleted group (median time to progression not reached) than for the intact group (median time to progression = 15.2 months, p = 0.001). Overall survival is 98% (39/40) with a median follow-up of 17.5 months (2.8 - 31.1 months). Conclusions: LOH of both 1p and 19q is strongly correlated with a durable response of AO and MAO to a combined regimen of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Tumors that are intact at 1p and/or 19q progress early despite an aggressive therapeutic regimen. These results suggest that future clinical trials should be prospectively stratified by tumor 1p/19q genotype. [Table: see text]

AbstractBuilding on an initiative to enhance clinical trial participation involving the Society for Neuro-Oncology, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners, we evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria and trial conduct on neuro-oncology clinical trial participation. Clinical trials often carry forward eligibility criteria from prior studies that may be overly restrictive and unnecessary and needlessly limit patient accrual. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be evaluated based on the goals and design of the study and whether they impact patient safety and/or treatment efficacy. In addition, we evaluate clinical trial conduct as a barrier to accrual and discuss strategies to minimize such barriers for neuro-oncology trials.

Abstract BACKGROUND A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. METHODS We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. RESULTS We described selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. We focused on patient and community factors, disparities, physician and provider factors, clinical trial factors, and site and organizational factors CONCLUSIONS We will implement strategies with the intent to double accrual to neuro-oncology trials over the next 5 years.