Mellinghoff, Ingo K.

PURPOSE Integrating external control data into clinical trial designs and analyses has the potential to accelerate drug development processes. We reanalyzed the three experimental arms of the Individual Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT), a randomized phase II platform trial in newly diagnosed O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02977780 ). To evaluate the validity of using external data sets, we compared treatment effect estimates based on internal INSIGhT control data and matched external control data. METHODS The three experimental arms of INSIGhT (abemaciclib [n = 72], neratinib [n = 80], and CC-115 [n = 12]) did not improve survival compared with internal controls (standard chemoradiation [n = 70]). We derived external control patient-level data from multiple real-world and clinical trial data sets. We applied propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate treatment effects with external controls. Additionally, using this glioblastoma (GBM) data collection, we specified simulation scenarios to evaluate trial designs that integrate external controls. RESULTS After matching to external controls, no survival benefit was observed for patients receiving abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34]), neratinib (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.24]), or CC-115 (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.41 to 1.88]). Simulations, together with the INSIGhT data and a collection of GBM data sets, allowed us to examine efficiencies and risks of clinical trial designs that leverage external control data. CONCLUSION The use of carefully matched external controls, to replace or augment the internal controls of INSIGhT, produced treatment effect estimates that were similar to previously published analyses. Single-arm trial designs and hybrid randomized designs incorporating propensity score–matched external control data evaluated treatment effects in the early-phase testing of experimental therapies in newly diagnosed GBM. The validity of this approach and risks of bias depended on the availability of comprehensive and accurate data on all potential confounders, in the absence of unmeasured confounding.

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 Glioblastoma is the most common type of malignant primary brain tumor and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In 2021, the World Health Organization updated the classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors to restrict glioblastomas to isocitrate dehydrogenase-wildtype (IDHwt) tumors, improving understanding of the prognosis and optimal therapy for these tumors. This revision also enables more homogeneous populations of patients to be enrolled in clinical trials, facilitating the evaluation of novel therapies. In this updated consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of patients with glioblastoma is discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as immunotherapies, viral therapies, targeted molecular therapies, theranostics, and antibody–drug conjugates will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Importance Molecular techniques, including next-generation sequencing, genomic copy number profiling, fusion transcript detection, and genomic DNA methylation arrays, are now indispensable tools for the workup of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Yet there remains a great deal of heterogeneity in using such biomarker testing across institutions and hospital systems. This is in large part because there is a persistent reluctance among third-party payers to cover molecular testing. The objective of this Review is to describe why comprehensive molecular biomarker testing is now required for the accurate diagnosis and grading and prognostication of CNS tumors and, in so doing, to justify more widespread use by clinicians and coverage by third-party payers. Observations The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system for CNS tumors incorporates specific molecular signatures into the essential diagnostic criteria for most tumor entities. Many CNS tumor types cannot be reliably diagnosed according to current WHO guidelines without molecular testing. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also incorporates molecular testing into their guidelines for CNS tumors. Both sets of guidelines are maximally effective if they are implemented routinely for all patients with CNS tumors. Moreover, the cost of these tests is less than 5% of the overall average cost of caring for patients with CNS tumors and consistently improves management. This includes more accurate diagnosis and prognostication, clinical trial eligibility, and prediction of response to specific treatments. Each major group of CNS tumors in the WHO classification is evaluated and how molecular diagnostics enhances patient care is described. Conclusions and Relevance Routine advanced multidimensional molecular profiling is now required to provide optimal standard of care for patients with CNS tumors.

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.

Abstract BACKGROUND Accurate molecular diagnosis of infiltrating brainstem tumors, including diffuse midline gliomas and IDH mutant astrocytomas, is essential for prognostication and optimal therapy. Surgical biopsy of the brainstem carries risk of permanent neurological deficits and may yield insufficient or non-diagnostic tissue. We hypothesized that minimally invasive “liquid biopsy” analyzing circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) could represent an alternative molecular diagnostic modality. METHODS We performed MSK-IMPACT, a New York State Department of Health authorized hybridization capture-based next-generation panel DNA sequencing clinical assay on 44 CSF samples from 37 unique patients with brainstem tumors. Ages at time of CSF collection ranged from 1–47 years (median: 29 years). For samples in which diagnostic alterations could not be detected, we performed a series of secondary analyses for known hotspot mutations such as H3F3A, IDH1/2, and BRAF, including manual review for mutant reads below the official clinical reporting threshold, as well as droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). RESULTS Among 44 samples included in this study, 10/44 (23%) samples had mutations detected by MSK-IMPACT using standard clinical calling criteria and 14 of the remaining 34 samples (41%) had supporting evidence of a diagnostically relevant mutation based on manual review. Testing by ddPCR was performed on 11 samples (based on DNA availability), uncovering 4 additional mutations. Overall positive diagnostic yield was 64% (28/44). In biopsied patients, CSF confirmed disease-defining mutations in 80% (16/20) of CSF samples, including H3F3A K28M (9/10; 90%) and IDH1/2 (5/6; 83%). Among 24 unbiopsied patients, a disease-defining mutation was identified in 60% (15/25) of CSF samples. CONCLUSIONS Analysis of CSF cfDNA in patients with brainstem tumors has a high diagnostic yield and obviates the need for tissue biopsy in a majority of patients. A tiered testing approach using next-generation sequencing and ddPCR assays helps maximize diagnostic information and sensitivity.

Abstract BACKGROUND Leveraging external data has the potential to increase efficiency and precision of drug development in glioblastoma by complementing or replacing data from in-trial controls. We used an external control arm (ECA) to re-analyze data of the abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115 arms of the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. METHODS INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is an ongoing phase 2 adaptive platform trial in newly diagnosed MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma with a shared control arm of patients receiving radiation therapy with concurrent and maintenance temozolomide. The initial experimental arms (abemaciclib, neratinib, CC-115) have not shown a survival benefit relative to the shared control arm. We re-analyzed the experimental arm data and replaced the shared control arm with an ECA. The ECA was developed from a collection of trial datasets and real-world data available through the Glioblastoma External (GBM-X) Data Platform (). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for possible differences between pretreatment covariates (age, sex, resection, KPS) in the ECA and shared control arm. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS On INSIGhT, patients were randomized to abemaciclib (n = 74), neratinib (n = 80), and CC-115 (n = 12). There were 687 unmethylated MGMT patients in the GBM-X ECA. After propensity score matching, there was no significant treatment effect associated with abemaciclib (HR 1.091, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.536), neratinib (HR = 1.043, 95%CI:0.787-1.383, p = 0.770), or CC-115 (HR 1.088, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.794) compared to the ECA. CONCLUSION In comparison to an ECA, there was no significant survival benefit with abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115. Treatment effects estimates were similar to the primary analyses based on the original shared control arm of INSIGhT. The use of external control arms in early phase testing of new therapies is supported by our findings and could significantly reduce costs and time to conduct trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

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 Intrinsic brainstem tumors arising in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients comprise a spectrum of entities, predominantly diffuse midline gliomas (DMG) and IDH mutant astrocytomas. Accurate molecular diagnosis is essential for prognostication and optimal therapy. Therapeutic considerations include inclusion (in IDH mutant) or exclusion (in H3K27M) of adjuvant Temozolomide post radiotherapy and use of molecular targeted therapy (IDH inhibitors). Surgical biopsy, however, is associated with increased risk of permanent neurological deficits and may yield insufficient or non-diagnostic tissue. We hypothesized that minimally-invasive “liquid biopsy” of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) could represent a superior diagnostic modality in this patient population, employing molecular analysis of cell free DNA (cfDNA). We analyzed 44 CSF samples from 38 unique patients for recurrent driver mutations in brainstem gliomas, including H3K27M, IDH1, and IDH2. MSK-IMPACT, a NY state-authorized hybridization capture-based next-generation panel DNA sequencing assay, was used for analysis. Samples without a detectable driver mutation by MSK-IMPACT testing were further subjected to gene targeted testing by droplet digital PCR. In all, 10/44 (22.7%) samples had mutations detected by MSK-IMPACT using standard calling criteria and 13 of the remaining 34 samples (38.2%) had supporting evidence of a mutation based on manual review. Further testing by ddPCR was performed on a subset of cases (based on DNA availability) which confirmed 7 of the previous low-level mutations and uncovered 4 additional mutations. Overall, 27/44 (61.4%) of cases had detectable evidence of a mutation, and of the 23 patients without a known tissue diagnosis, a driver in the CSF was identified for 47.8% of patients (11/23). Minimally-invasive analysis of CSF cfDNA in patients with intrinsic brainstem tumors has a high diagnostic yield and may obviate the need for tissue biopsy in a majority of patients. Testing with high sensitivity assays is valuable to maximize the rate of detection.

Abstract Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant gliomas are the most common adult, malignant primary brain tumors diagnosed in patients younger than 50, constituting an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, sparking multiple efforts to improve their diagnosis and treatment. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), the current diagnosis and management of IDH-mutant gliomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies, such as targeted molecular therapies and immunotherapies, will be reviewed. Current challenges and future directions for research will be discussed.