Citations

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.

Background and Purpose: Periventricular white matter hyperintensities (WMH; PVWMH) and deep WMH (DWMH) are regional classifications of WMH and reflect proposed differences in cause. In the first study, to date, we undertook genome-wide association analyses of DWMH and PVWMH to show that these phenotypes have different genetic underpinnings. Methods: Participants were aged 45 years and older, free of stroke and dementia. We conducted genome-wide association analyses of PVWMH and DWMH in 26,654 participants from CHARGE (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology), ENIGMA (Enhancing Neuro-Imaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis), and the UKB (UK Biobank). Regional correlations were investigated using the genome-wide association analyses -pairwise method. Cross-trait genetic correlations between PVWMH, DWMH, stroke, and dementia were estimated using LDSC. Results: In the discovery and replication analysis, for PVWMH only, we found associations on chromosomes 2 ( NBEAL ), 10q23.1 ( TSPAN14/FAM231A ), and 10q24.33 ( SH3PXD2A). In the much larger combined meta-analysis of all cohorts, we identified ten significant regions for PVWMH: chromosomes 2 (3 regions), 6, 7, 10 (2 regions), 13, 16, and 17q23.1. New loci of interest include 7q36.1 ( NOS3 ) and 16q24.2. In both the discovery/replication and combined analysis, we found genome-wide significant associations for the 17q25.1 locus for both DWMH and PVWMH. Using gene-based association analysis, 19 genes across all regions were identified for PVWMH only, including the new genes: CALCRL (2q32.1), KLHL24 (3q27.1), VCAN (5q27.1), and POLR2F (22q13.1). Thirteen genes in the 17q25.1 locus were significant for both phenotypes. More extensive genetic correlations were observed for PVWMH with small vessel ischemic stroke. There were no associations with dementia for either phenotype. Conclusions: Our study confirms these phenotypes have distinct and also shared genetic architectures. Genetic analyses indicated PVWMH was more associated with ischemic stroke whilst DWMH loci were implicated in vascular, astrocyte, and neuronal function. Our study confirms these phenotypes are distinct neuroimaging classifications and identifies new candidate genes associated with PVWMH only.

AbstractLutetium-177-dotatate (177Lu-dotatate), a form of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) in 2018 based on the promising results of the NETTER-1 trial for grade 1–2 midgut NETs. Here, we present a patient with a grade 3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and BRCA1 germline mutation who had a significant response to 177Lu-dotatate.

Abstract Despite the widespread clinical use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI, DSC-MRI methodology has not been standardized, hindering its utilization for response assessment in multicenter trials. Recently, the DSC-MRI Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition issued an updated consensus DSC-MRI protocol compatible with the standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) for high-grade gliomas that is increasingly used in the clinical setting and is the default MRI protocol for the National Clinical Trials Network. After reviewing the basis for controversy over DSC-MRI protocols, this paper provides evidence-based best practices for clinical DSC-MRI as determined by the Committee, including pulse sequence (gradient echo vs spin echo), BTIP-compliant contrast agent dosing (preload and bolus), flip angle (FA), echo time (TE), and post-processing leakage correction. In summary, full-dose preload, full-dose bolus dosing using intermediate (60°) FA and field strength-dependent TE (40–50 ms at 1.5 T, 20–35 ms at 3 T) provides overall best accuracy and precision for cerebral blood volume estimates. When single-dose contrast agent usage is desired, no-preload, full-dose bolus dosing using low FA (30°) and field strength-dependent TE provides excellent performance, with reduced contrast agent usage and elimination of potential systematic errors introduced by variations in preload dose and incubation time.

Background: Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an oligogenic arrhythmic disease with increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest. Several BrS or ECG traits-related single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were identified through previous genome-wide association studies in white patients. We aimed to validate these SNPs in BrS patients in the Taiwanese population, assessing the cumulative effect of risk alleles and the BrS-polygenic risk score in predicting cardiac events. Methods: We genotyped 190 unrelated BrS patients using the TWB Array, and Taiwan Biobank was used as controls. SNPs not included in the array were imputed by IMPUTE2. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the associations between each particular SNP, the collective BrS-polygenic risk score, and clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 88 previously reported SNPs, 22 were validated in Taiwanese BrS patients ( P <0.05). Of the 22 SNPs, 2 (rs10428132 and rs9388451) were linked with susceptibility to BrS, 10 were SNPs previously reaching genome-wide significance, and 10 were SNPs associated with ECG traits. For the 3 most commonly reported SNPs, disease risk increased consistently with the number of risk alleles (odds ratio, 3.54; P trend =1.38×10 −9 for 5 risk alleles versus 1). Similar patterns were observed in both SCN5A mutation+ (odds ratio, 3.66; P trend =0.049) and SCN5A mutation− (odds ratio, 3.75; P trend =8.54×10 −9 ) subgroups. Furthermore, BrS patients without SCN5A mutations had more risk alleles than BrS patients with SCN5A mutations regardless of the range of polygenic risk scores. Three SNPs (rs4687718, rs7784776, and rs2968863) showed significant associations with the composite outcome (sudden cardiac arrest plus syncope, hazard ratio, 2.13, 1.48, and 0.41; P =0.02, 0.006, and 0.008, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings suggested that some SNPs associated with BrS or ECG traits exist across multiple populations. The cumulative risk of the BrS-related SNPs is similar to that in white BrS patients, but it appears to correlate with the absence of SCN5A mutations.

10006 Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. Adoptive cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) leverages and enhances the body’s natural defense against cancer and has shown durable responses in heavily pretreated melanoma patients. Methods: C-144-01 is a global Phase 2 open-label, multicenter study of efficacy & safety of lifileucel in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma who have progressed on checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors, if BRAFv600 mutant. We report on Cohort 2 (N = 66) patients who have received TIL. Tumors were resected at local institutions, processed in central GMP facilities for TIL production, manufactured, cryopreserved & shipped back to sites in a 22-day process. Therapy consisted of one week of lymphodepletion, a single lifileucel infusion, and up to 6 IL-2 doses. ORR was based on RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment. Data cutoff was Feb 2, 2020. Results: Baseline characteristics: 3.3 mean prior therapies (anti-PD1 100%; anti-CTLA-4 80%; BRAF/MEK inhibitor 23%), high baseline tumor burden (106 mm mean target lesion sum of diameters), 44% liver/brain lesions, 40.9% LDH > ULN. ORR by investigator was 36.4% (2 CR, 22 PR) and DCR was 80.3%. Mean time to response was 1.9 months (range: 1.3-5.6). After a median study follow-up of 17.0 months, median DOR (mDOR) was still not reached. Six responders have progressed, 2 have died and 2 started other anti-cancer therapy without progression. The adverse event profile was consistent with the underlying advanced disease and the lymphodepletion and IL-2 regimens. Additional follow-up data will be available for presentation. Conclusions: Lifileucel treatment results in a 36.4% ORR and mDOR was not reached at 17.0 months of median study follow up in a heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients with high baseline disease burden who progressed on multiple prior therapies, including anti-PD1 and BRAF/MEK inhibitors, if BRAFv600 mutant. Clinical trial information: NCT02360579.

TPS5100 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN (A031203) trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies has shown benefit over sunitinib in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter phase 3 trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status > 70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks; pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60 mg oral daily; pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40 mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, 12-month CR rate, overall response rate based on RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR, tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers will be assessed. Updated enrollment through May 2020 will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .