Citations

ABSTRACT Pediatric radiation therapy presents unique challenges compared to adult treatments, including those of immobilization, potential need for sedation, and the critical importance of accurate, reproducible positioning. Additionally, heightened attention to imaging doses is necessary to minimize long‐term toxicity in survivors. Many of these challenges must be addressed during the process of simulation. This report provides guidelines for pediatric radiotherapy simulation from the Children's Oncology Group. These guidelines cover all anatomic sites and include recommendations for photon and proton therapies, as well as specialized procedures such as stereotactic body radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and total body irradiation. These guidelines are presented as recommendations rather than prescriptive standards as the practice will vary depending on patient age, diagnosis, clinical judgment, and institutional resources.

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.

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 DNA damage response (DDR) mechanisms are critical to maintenance of overall genomic stability, and their dysfunction can contribute to oncogenesis. Significant advances in our understanding of DDR pathways have raised the possibility of developing therapies that exploit these processes. In this expert-driven consensus review, we examine mechanisms of response to DNA damage, progress in development of DDR inhibitors in IDH-wild-type glioblastoma and IDH-mutant gliomas, and other important considerations such as biomarker development, preclinical models, combination therapies, mechanisms of resistance and clinical trial design considerations.

Abstract Background Although response in pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) includes volumetric assessment, more simplified 2D-based methods are often used in clinical trials. The study’s purpose was to compare volumetric to 2D methods. Methods An expert neuroradiologist performed solid and whole tumor (including cyst and edema) volumetric measurements on MR images using a PACS-based manual segmentation tool in 43 pLGG participants (213 total follow-up images) from the Pacific Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Consortium (PNOC-001) trial. Classification based on changes in volumetric and 2D measurements of solid tumor were compared to neuroradiologist visual response assessment using the Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System (BT-RADS) criteria for a subset of 65 images using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Longitudinal modeling of solid tumor volume was used to predict BT-RADS classification in 54 of the 65 images. Results There was a significant difference in ROC area under the curve between 3D solid tumor volume and 2D area (0.96 vs 0.78, P = .005) and between 3D solid and 3D whole volume (0.96 vs 0.84, P = .006) when classifying BT-RADS progressive disease (PD). Thresholds of 15–25% increase in 3D solid tumor volume had an 80% sensitivity in classifying BT-RADS PD included in their 95% confidence intervals. The longitudinal model of solid volume response had a sensitivity of 82% and a positive predictive value of 67% for detecting BT-RADS PD. Conclusions Volumetric analysis of solid tumor was significantly better than 2D measurements in classifying tumor progression as determined by BT-RADS criteria and will enable more comprehensive clinical management.

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.

AbstractRadiation oncology is an integral part of the multidisciplinary team caring for children with cancer. The primary goal of our committee is to enable the delivery of the safest dose of radiation therapy (RT) with the maximal potential for cure, and to minimize toxicity in children by delivering lower doses to normal tissues using advanced technologies like intensity‐modulated RT (IMRT) and proton therapy. We provide mentorship for y ators and are actively involved in educating the global radiation oncology community. We are leaders in the effort to discover novel radiosensitizers, radioprotectors, and advanced RT technologies that could help improve outcomes of children with cancer.