Chinot, Olivier

Abstract Purpose: In a post hoc analysis of the CATNON trial (NCT00626990), we explored whether adding temozolomide to radiotherapy improves outcome in patients with IDH1/2 wildtype (wt) anaplastic astrocytomas with molecular features of glioblastoma [redesignated as glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase–wildtype (IDH-wt) in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of central nervous system tumors]. Patients and Methods: From the randomized phase III CATNON study examining the addition of adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide to radiotherapy in anaplastic astrocytomas, we selected a subgroup of IDH1/2wt and H3F3Awt tumors with presence of TERT promoter mutations and/or EGFR amplifications and/or combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10. Molecular abnormalities including MGMT promoter methylation status were determined by next-generation sequencing, DNA methylation profiling, and SNaPshot analysis. Results: Of the 751 patients entered in the CATNON study, 670 had fully molecularly characterized tumors. A total of 159 of these tumors met the WHO 2021 molecular criteria for glioblastoma, IDH-wt. Of these patients, 47 received radiotherapy only and 112 received a combination of radiotherapy and temozolomide. There was no added effect of temozolomide on either overall survival [HR, 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–1.71] or progression-free survival (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61–1.24). MGMT promoter methylation was prognostic for overall survival, but was not predictive for outcome to temozolomide treatment either with respect to overall survival or progression-free survival. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with glioblastoma, IDH-wt temozolomide treatment did not add benefit beyond that observed from radiotherapy, regardless of MGMT promoter status. These findings require a new well-powered prospective clinical study to explore the efficacy of temozolomide treatment in this patient population.

Abstract Background Survival in patients with IDH1/2-mutant (mt) anaplastic astrocytomas is highly variable. We have used the prospective phase 3 CATNON trial to identify molecular factors related to outcome in IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients. Methods The CATNON trial randomized 751 adult patients with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-codeleted anaplastic glioma to 59.4 Gy radiotherapy +/− concurrent and/or adjuvant temozolomide. The presence of necrosis and/or microvascular proliferation was scored at central pathology review. Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip arrays were used for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis and the determination of copy number variations (CNV). Two DNA methylation-based tumor classifiers were used for risk stratification. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed using 1 of the 2 glioma-tailored NGS panels. The primary endpoint was overall survival measured from the date of randomization. Results Full analysis (genome-wide DNA methylation and NGS) was successfully performed on 654 tumors. Of these, 432 tumors were IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytomas. Both epigenetic classifiers identified poor prognosis patients that partially overlapped. A predictive prognostic Cox proportional hazard model identified that independent prognostic factors for IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients included; age, mini-mental state examination score, treatment with concurrent and/or adjuvant temozolomide, the epigenetic classifiers, PDGFRA amplification, CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, PI3K mutations, and total CNV load. Independent recursive partitioning analysis highlights the importance of these factors for patient prognostication. Conclusion Both clinical and molecular factors identify IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients with worse outcome. These results will further refine the current WHO criteria for glioma classification.

Abstract Background Two methods combining survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in glioma trials to calculate the “net clinical benefit” were evaluated: Quality-adjusted effect sizes (QASES) and joint modeling (JM). Methods The net clinical benefit in two trials was calculated as proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) and HRQoL between the experimental arm and standard treatment arm were calculated, while the relative emphasis placed on survival/HRQoL varied. JM allows simultaneous modeling of HRQoL and OS/PFS. Results In the EORTC 26951 trial, combined radiochemotherapy significantly prolonged OS (difference 11.7 months), but also resulted in more patients experiencing clinically relevant worsening (≥10 points) in appetite loss and nausea/vomiting shortly after treatment. Using QASES, the survival benefit of additional procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) decreased from 42.3 months to 29.5 and 28.2 months when accounting for appetite loss and nausea/vomiting, respectively. JM analyses resulted in a loss of the beneficial effect of additional PCV between 13% and 24% when adjusting for different HRQoL parameters. The EORTC 22033 trial showed no significant PFS difference between radiotherapy or temozolomide alone (46 vs 39 months), nor clinically relevant differences in HRQoL. JM analyses also showed no significant association between PFS and HRQoL scales/items, whereas QASES showed that temozolomide alone was more favorable when considering symptom burden (47–49 instead of 39 months). Conclusions Both methods resulted in different outcomes, but adjusting for the impact of treatment on HRQoL resulted in theoretically reduced survival benefits.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. Two methods that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data: Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM) were applied to gain insight in the net clinical benefit. METHODS The net clinical benefit in one RCT (EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone) was calculated as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (42.3 vs. 30.6 months). The percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 9.7 months up till 5.5 months, given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

Abstract BACKGROUND The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to inform glioma patients and facilitate shared decision making. We applied two methods (i.e. Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM)) that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data into one outcome, to gain insight in the net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy. In addition, we assessed if both methods result in similar interpretations. MATERIAL AND METHODS We calculated the net clinical benefit in one randomized controlled trial, EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone, as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. Next, the combined effect size can be determined by weighing the emphasis put on survival or HRQoL (e.g. survival more important). JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (difference of 10.8 months). In contrast, the percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. The QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 10.8 months to 6.8 months when adjusted for the HRQoL scales/items, when given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.