Aizer, Ayal A.

Importance Brain metastases are common in patients with cancer, and radiation is often used for management. Among patients with more than 4 brain metastases, the effects of stereotactic radiation targeting only individual tumors, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance, which radiates both tumors and normal brain, remain unknown. Objective To determine whether stereotactic radiation improves symptom severity and interference with daily functioning, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 United States–based centers. Eligible patients had 5 to 20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation. Enrollment occurred between April 11, 2017, and May 17, 2024 (final follow-up, March 18, 2025). Intervention Stereotactic radiation, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months postbaseline relative to baseline using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor instrument (scale, 0-10; score change range, −10 to 10; −10 = best). A clinically meaningful Δ was defined as 0.98. Results Of 196 randomized patients (mean age, 61 years; 129 [66%] female; 176 [90%] White; median number of brain metastases, 14 [IQR, 11-18]; 49 [25%] with prior neurosurgical resection), 83 (42%) completed the 6-month assessment. For the primary outcome, between baseline and postbaseline assessments through the 6-month follow-up, stereotactic radiation changed the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor score from 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, −0.32) and hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation changed the score from 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) (mean difference, −1.06 [95% CI, −1.54 to −0.58]; P < .001). Related grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12 patients (12%) in the stereotactic radiation group and 13 patients (13%) in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group; grade 1-3 fatigue was most frequent (27 [28%] vs 43 [44%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with 5 to 20 brain metastases, these findings support stereotactic radiation over hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation to improve symptoms and interference with daily functioning, key components of quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03075072

PURPOSE Stereotactic radiation (SRS/SRT) as opposed to whole-brain radiation (WBRT) represents the standard of care for patients with a limited number of brain metastases given the relatively favorable toxicity profile associated with stereotactic treatment. However, in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), WBRT remains standard because of a lack of prospective data supporting SRS/SRT and concerns related to intracranial progression and neurologic death when WBRT is omitted. We conducted a single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial of SRS/SRT in patients with SCLC and 1-10 brain metastases to assess neurologic death rates relative to historical controls managed with WBRT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03391362 ). METHODS Patients were eligible if they had SCLC or an extrathoracic small cell primary and 1-10 brain metastases. Previous brain-directed radiation including prophylactic cranial irradiation was not permitted. Neurologic death was defined as marked, progressive, radiographic brain progression accompanied by corresponding neurologic symptomatology without systemic disease progression or systemic symptoms of a life-threatening nature. Close imaging-based surveillance of the brain post-SRS/SRT was used. RESULTS Between February 2018 and April 2023, 100 patients were enrolled. The median number of brain metastases was 2 (IQR, 1-4; range, 1-10). The median overall survival was 10.2 months; only 22% of patients required salvage WBRT. In total, 20 neurologic deaths were observed, relative to 64 non-neurologic deaths. The neurologic death rate at 1 year was 11.0% (95% CI, 5.8 to 18.1); the historical rate in patients managed with WBRT was 17.5%. CONCLUSION Our prospective, multi-institutional study demonstrated low rates of neurologic death when SRS/SRT as opposed to WBRT is used in patients with SCLC and 1-10 brain metastases who are surveilled closely post-treatment, supporting the utility of stereotactic approaches in this population.

2011 Background: Radiation therapy forms the mainstay of management for patients with brain metastases. Published randomized trials have found improved quality of life with stereotactic radiation (SRS/SRT) over whole brain radiation (WBRT) in patients with ≤ 4 brain metastases; comparative trials in patients with >4 brain metastases are lacking. In addition, prior randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of hippocampal avoidance WBRT (HA-WBRT) over traditional WBRT, but no study has compared SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT. Accordingly, we conducted a multicenter, phase 3 randomized trial comparing SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT in patients with 5-20 brain metastases. Methods: Eligible patients were age 18-80 with 5-20 brain metastases secondary to a solid primary other than small cell lung cancer, were naïve to prior brain-directed radiation, and lacked leptomeningeal disease. The primary endpoint was the average of patient-reported symptom severity and interference over the first six months post-baseline relative to baseline, using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT) module, a validated instrument assessing 22 symptoms and 6 interference measures integral to quality of life, each scored 0-10 with higher scores indicating greater symptomatology/interference in function. The target effect size was a symptom severity of 0.70, corresponding to 50% of the observed difference between patients with a good (90-100) versus poor (≤80) Karnofsky performance status; with 80% power and a two-sided alpha of 0.05, 196 patients were required. Results: Between 4/2017-5/2024, 196 patients enrolled, 98 in each arm. The median number of brain metastases was 14 (IQR 11-18); 25% of patients underwent prior neurosurgical resection. Baseline mean MDASI-BT symptom severity scores were 2.2 (SRS/SRT arm) and 1.9 (HA-WBRT arm), p=0.20; respective interference scores were 3.5 and 3.2 (p=0.40). The average of weighted post-baseline severity and interference scores relative to baseline indicated lower symptomatology/inference in the SRS/SRT arm, meeting the primary endpoint of the study (difference between SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT: -1.06, p<0.001). Averaged post-baseline symptom severity scores minus baseline were -0.03 and 0.59 in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (difference -0.62, with lower symptom severity in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001); respective interference estimates were -0.62 and 0.89 (difference -1.50, with lower interference in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001). Median survival was 8.3 and 8.5 months in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (p=0.30). Conclusions: This phase 3 randomized trial indicates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases experience fewer symptoms and less interference in function after SRS/SRT as opposed to HA-WBRT, without compromise of survival, supporting SRS/SRT as the standard of care in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03075072 .

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 Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454‐489.

Abstract Brain metastases occur commonly in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Yet, less is known about brain metastases than cancer-related entities of similar incidence. Advances in oncologic care have heightened the importance of intracranial management. Here, in this consensus review supported by the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), we review the landscape of brain metastases with particular attention to management approaches and ongoing efforts with potential to shape future paradigms of care. Each coauthor carried an area of expertise within the field of brain metastases and initially composed, edited, or reviewed their specific subsection of interest. After each subsection was accordingly written, multiple drafts of the manuscript were circulated to the entire list of authors for group discussion and feedback. The hope is that the these consensus guidelines will accelerate progress in the understanding and management of patients with brain metastases, and highlight key areas in need of further exploration that will lead to dedicated trials and other research investigations designed to advance the field.

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.

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 &gt; 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 &lt; 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.