Citations

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 Berubicin is a unique anthracycline engineered to have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Herein we present the primary results from a large global trial of Berubicin vs. Lomustine randomizing patients with progressive disease after only one prior therapy, all being IDH WT and stratified for MGMT methylation. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rates (ORR) of complete (CR) and partial (PR) responses. Eligibility was determined radiologically by central reads based on progression of disease, and in 2.5 years 252 patients were enrolled with 168 randomized to Berubicin and 84 to Lomustine. Safety assessment showed that Berubicin was well tolerated and myelosuppressive side effects were manageable with growth factors. Importantly, although anthracyclines are known to cause cardiotoxicity, evaluation with frequent troponin measurements, ECG and ECHO testing revealed no evidence of impact on cardiac function. The primary endpoint, OS, showed Berubicin and Lomustine had similar outcomes. Median overall survival for Berubicin was 8.7 months (6.7, 9.9) and for Lomustine was 9.3 months (6.7, 10.7) with a Hazard Ratio of 1.13 (p = 0.5351). PFS of Berubicin and Lomustine were also similar (1.5 vs, 1.6 months). There were no responses in the Lomustine arm and stable disease in 35.2% of patients while Berubicin had a response rate of 5.8% (PR) and stable disease of 33.6% with a combined disease control rate (DCR) of 39.4%. Additional data will be presented and discussed. Anthracyclines are characteristically used in combination for systemic therapy (e.g. leukemia, lymphoma, certain breast cancers), so there is promise that combination therapy will be the next pertinent approach to treatment of GBM. Evaluation of activity against a range of pediatric brain tumors is being pursued and preliminary results will be presented at the time of the conference.

AbstractWhile the COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the expansion of telemedicine into nearly every specialty of medicine, few articles have summarized current practices and recommendations for integrating virtual care in the practice of neuro-oncology. This article identifies current telemedicine practice, provides practical guidance for conducting telemedicine visits, and generates recommendations for integrating virtual care into neuro-oncology practice. Practical aspects of telemedicine are summarized including when to use and not use telemedicine, how to conduct a virtual visit, who to include in the virtual encounter, unique aspects of telehealth in neuro-oncology, and emerging innovations.

Abstract BACKGROUND Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers and clinicians led us to conduct a survey identifying opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. METHODS Summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates (European Association of Neuro-Oncology, Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology, Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career success metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. RESULTS The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40-49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology community. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

Abstract Background Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers, and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. Methods In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic, and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. Results The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40–49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. Conclusions The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

AbstractBackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24–May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.

Abstract To assess the impact of the pandemic on the field, we performed an international web-based survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents from April 24 through May 17. Of 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were in the US, and 314 (55%) were international. 80.4% were affiliated with academic institutions. 94% respondents reported changes in clinical practice; 95% reported conversion to telemedicine for at least some appointments. However, almost 10% practitioners felt the need to see patients in person specifically because of billing concerns and perceived institutional pressure. Over 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. 67% practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial: 53% suspended phase II and 62% suspended phase III trial enrollment. 71% clinicians feared for their or their families’ safety, specifically because of their clinical duties. 20% percent said they did not have enough PPE to work safely; about the same percentage were unhappy with their institutions’ response to the pandemic. 43% believed the pandemic would negatively affect their academic career, and 52% fellowship program directors were worried about losing funding for their training programs. While 69% respondents reported increased stress, 44% were offered no psychosocial support. 37% had their salary reduced. 36% researchers had to temporarily close their laboratories. In contrast, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient and family satisfaction, quality of communication, and use of technology to deliver care and interactions with other practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has altered standard treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options for patients. In some cases, clinicians felt institutional pressure to continue conducting billable in-person visits when telemedicine visits would have sufficed. A lack of institutional support created anxiety among clinicians and researchers. We make specific recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward.

Abstract BACKGROUND The face of neuro-oncology providers has evolved over the century. We sought to evaluate if its culture has evolved concurrently. Women in NeuroOncology (“WiN.”) is a SNO subcomittee that identifies the needs of women in neuro-oncology and promotes advancement of the careers of women in neuro-oncology. We created this survey to examine bias within our field with the goal to implement future change. METHODS Following IRB approval, we surveyed both male and female SNO members and analyzed de-identified responses. RESULTS Of the 206 respondents, 25% identified as male, 84.9% were in academics, 73.7% were primarily research focused (69% clinical), and 59% were medical neuro-oncology focused. The majority of respondents were 36–45 years old (47%), followed by 46–55 (32%), and 21% aged 56+. 69.8% self-identified as white, followed by 22% Asian, 7.8% Latin, and 2.9% Black. The majority reported general professional bias at least “not infrequently”, with 11.7% reporting it “very commonly.” 59.9% reported “not being invited to participate and or being considered for an opportunity”, followed by 46.1% “being minimized, teased or disrespected”, 44.3% “being passed over for professional opportunities”, and 41.9% salary disparity. Furthermore, of those reporting general professional bias, 42.9% reported a lack of effective mentorship and 94% reported some frequency of burnout, with 34% “commonly, very commonly”, followed by 28.3% “not infrequently.” Notably, although only 25% of responders were men, 82.4% of total respondents reported some frequency of gender bias in the workplace, with “not infrequently” being the most commonly reported (48%). CONCLUSIONS In this survey, we identified SNO members who have experienced bias. Based on quantitative and qualitative responses, many reported bias manifesting as missing academic opportunities, salary disparity, burnout, and lack of mentorship. As we cultivate the next generation, we will use these results to engage those in leadership to promote unbiased equality.

Palliative care services are not available in most outpatient oncology practices. A program training 11 mid-level providers from oncology practices on advanced directive discussions and supportive symptom assessment and management performed by palliative care specialists was completed. A follow-up session 9 months later identified barriers to implementation. Of the 11 mid-level providers, 8 participated in the follow-up session, and 9 of the 11 providers implemented advanced directive’s discussions and symptom assessment and management for patients with metastatic cancer. Main barriers included uncertainties about reimbursement, patients’ lack of knowledge about palliative care, and lack of access to supportive services. This program successfully promoted advanced directive discussions and supportive/palliative care symptom assessment and management to community oncology practices, which will hopefully translate into improved quality of life for patients with metastatic cancer.