Citations

Abstract Background Meningiomas lack effective therapies for recurrent or aggressive disease. NF2 inactivation, commonly in meningioma, may sensitize tumors to FAK inhibition and interact with MAPK signaling. This study investigated the therapeutic activity of defactinib (FAK inhibitor) and avutometinib (RAF/MEK inhibitor) alone and in combination in preclinical meningioma models. Methods MAPK-altered meningioma cell lines, IOMM-Lee (NF2 wild-type, BRAF p.V600E) and CH157-MN (NF2 mutant, NRAS p.Q61K), BenMen-1 (NF2 mutant, MAPK wild-type), and three patient-derived NF2 mutant cell lines were cultured in matrigel and treated with defactinib and avutometinib in 3D cell viability assays. In vivo, flank and intracranial xenograft models of IOMM-Lee and CH157-MN were treated with VS-4718 (FAK inhibitor, superior pharmokinetics in mice), avutometinib, or combination. Tumor growth, survival, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties were assessed. Results In vitro, combination therapy showed synergistic or additive effects in CH157-MN and IOMM-Lee cells, respectively. Defactinib alone demonstrated activity in NF2-mutant patient-derived and BenMen-1 cells, while avutometinib did not. In vivo, avutometinib monotherapy suppressed tumor growth and extended survival in both flank and intracranial xenograft models, with evidence of favorable pharmacokinetic properties and target pathway inhibition in intracranial tumors. Combination therapy provided enhanced and sustained control of flank CH157-MN meningioma compared to avutometinib alone but did not significantly improve survival over avutometinib alone in intracranial models. Conclusions Avutometinib demonstrated robust anti-tumor effects in flank and intracranial models of MAPK-altered meningioma. Combination benefits were context dependent. Defactinib activity in NF2-mutant patient-derived cells without targetable MAPK-kinase alterations highlights the importance of genomic biomarkers to guide personalized strategies.

TPS2103 Background: Treatment for newly diagnosed IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 3, is based on the results of the CATNON study, demonstrating benefit of radiotherapy followed by 12 months of adjuvant temozolomide. While temozolomide and radiotherapy significantly improved survival, the prognosis for these patients remains limited and more effective therapies are required. This trial will evaluate the benefit of the addition of the IDH1 and IDH-2 inhibitor vorasidenib to adjuvant temozolomide versus placebo following standard radiotherapy to evaluate possible improvement in outcomes. Methods: Alliance A072301 (NCT07215910) is a multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 randomized study to determine if the addition of vorasidenib to adjuvant temozolomide significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS), based on blinded central review in patients with newly diagnosed, IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 3. Key inclusion criteria include age ≥ 12 years old, histological confirmation of astrocytoma (absence of 1p/19q codeletion), WHO grade 3, presence of any IDH mutation, plan for radiation and chemotherapy and surgery within 6 months. The presence of CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, spinal or leptomeningeal disease, as well as prior chemotherapy, cranial irradiation or IDH inhibitor therapy, is exclusionary. 408 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive vorasidenib 40 mg or placebo daily with 12 cycles of temozolomide following radiotherapy and then continued as monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors include age (< 40 years old vs ≥ 40 years old) and residual disease (< 2 cm vs ≥ 2 cm). Tumor assessments with MRI will be every three months for the first two years, every four months for the next two years and then every six months thereafter as per blinded independent central review using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) 2.0 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include PFS by local review, time to next treatment, safety and tolerability, quality of life measures. Exploratory measures will include seizure frequency. The trial will have 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.625 with one-sided type I error rate of 0.025. Enrollment for the trial commenced February 2026. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

e13661 Background: The process of data abstraction and curation represents a significant proportion of clinical trial costs, requiring up to $30,000 per patient depending on the data complexity. Research variables such as stage, performance status (PS), and cancer disease status are typically present in the electronic health record (EHR) in free text but require abstraction for research use. Structuring these real-world data (RWD) in an exportable format utilizing minimum common oncology data elements (mCODE) could reduce the need for abstraction and the potential for erroneous transcription that has been shown to be 5.51-7.72% in a meta-analysis. We assessed the feasibility, availability, and accuracy of RWD for use across Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology sites by comparing RWD to matched electronic case report form data (CRF data) at 2 sites where EHR-integrated tools collect structured RWD for all solid tumor patients. Methods: Stage, PS, and cancer disease status (CDS) were extracted from the EHR as RWD and from eCRFs for 100 patients enrolled in National Clinical Trials Network trials across multiple disease sites from 2022 through 2025. Data from baseline and day 1 of cycles 1-4 were compared (500 encounter timepoints). Results: Stage, PS, and CDS were available from RWD more often than CRFs (85 vs 70 / 100 patients, 436 vs 416 / 500 encounters, and 345 vs 83 / 500 encounters respectively). When stage was present in both (n = 58), there were 5 mismatches (8.6%). PS had 22 mismatches (4%) and CDS had 45 mismatches (11.4%). After correcting for differences in CRF vs RWD definitions, CDS mismatches dropped to 1.2% (n = 4). Discordance between RWD and CRF data was related to differences in the timepoint of data collection (e.g., systemic staging scans completed after the initial consult), CRF data obtained from other EHR notes (e.g., oncology research nurse notes containing PS), inherent discordance between RWD and CRF data choices (e.g., responding vs complete or partial response), and failure to update EHR data capture tool fields. RWD were available 21 days (median) before CRF data. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RWD captured directly within clinical notes match CRF data, are more often present, and are available sooner. RWD could serve as a data source for trials, decreasing the need for manual curation and cost. Although some discordance exists, overall rates are low and close to the published error rate for abstraction.

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.

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 Background: Pembrolizumab has been increasingly used off label for recurrent gliomas, yet biomarkers predicting response are poorly defined. Gliomas exhibit substantial molecular heterogeneity across Glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype (GBM), Astrocytoma, IDH-Mutant (A-IDHm), and Oligodendroglioma, 1p/19q co-deleted (OLIGO), which may influence immunotherapy efficacy. This study aimed to identify molecular predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) in recurrent glioma patients treated with pembrolizumab. Methods: Adults ≥18 years with recurrent glioma receiving ≥2 cycles of pembrolizumab between 2014 - 2024 were retrospectively identified across Mayo Clinic. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) reports were reviewed and archival tumor tissue resected prior to pembrolizumab initiation was analyzed when available. Comprehensive molecular profiling was performed using the Mayo Clinic Solid Tumor Panel which employs the Illumina Tru-Sight Oncology 500 High-Throughput NGS assay. Progression was assessed using RANO 2.0 criteria. Genomic alterations (clinically relevant sequences and/or copy-number variants) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with differences in PFS compared using the log-rank test. Results: Thirty-three patients were included [median (range) age: 44.0 (21-76) years; 63.6% male]. The interval between tumor tissue sampling and pembrolizumab initiation was 9.9 (0.9-176.1) months, and median treatment duration was 2.8 (1.4-10.4) months. Median PFS for the overall cohort was 2.4 (0.8-15.2) months, and median overall survival from pembrolizumab initiation was 6.9 (0.9-48.2) months. Patients with OLIGO (n=8) had a longer PFS [4.6 (1.9-15.2) months] than either A-IDHm [n=11; PFS 2.1 (1.1-4.4) months] or GBM [n=14; PFS 2.3 (0.8-9.2) months]. Within OLIGO, CDKN2A/B heterozygous deletion (n=3) predicted a shorter PFS (3.9 vs 10.9 months; p=0.0462), while in A-IDHm, FANC mutation (n=2) was associated with a longer PFS (4.17 vs 1.61 months; p=0.0224). No significant associations with PFS were observed for other altered genes or pathways evaluated, including but not limited to Tumor Mutational Burden, EGFR, RB1, TP53, FUBP1, NF 1 or 2, PTEN, PDGFRA, PIK3CA, PIK3R1, CDK4, KRAS, MLH1, MLH2, MSH6 genomic alterations or CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion (all p&gt;0.05). Conclusions: Pembrolizumab shows limited overall efficacy in recurrent gliomas, however, exploratory analyses identified several subtype-specific genomic alterations that may correlate with PFS. These hypothesis-generating findings highlight the potential influence of underlying tumor biology on immunotherapy response and warrant further validation in larger, prospective cohorts. Citation Format: Shameel Shafqat, Muhammad Asad Maqbool, Hussam Al Kateb, Terry C. Burns, Jian L. Campian, Shannon P. Fortin Ensign, Evanthia Galanis, Julie E. Hammack, Cristaine M. Ida, Mitch L. Klebig, Timothy J. Kaufmann, Autumn C. Moon, Maciej M. Mrugala, Bryan J. Neth, Alyx B. aPorter, Michael W. Ruff, Ugur T. Sener, Wendy J. Sherman, Joon H. Uhm, Rachael A. Vaubel, Sani H. Kizilbash. Molecular correlates of progression-free survival in recurrent gliomas treated with pembrolizumab [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 5253.

Importance Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens may be administered after pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma arising from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (A-IPMNs), although the evidence supporting their use is limited. Objective To evaluate the survival benefit associated with contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy regimens after resection in A-IPMNs between 2017 and 2023. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was an international, multicenter study with 69 participating centers across Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients undergoing resection for A-IPMNs were included. Data were analyzed from May to August 2025. Intervention Contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, such as gemcitabine-capecitabine (GemCap); 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX), and S-1. Main Outcome and Measure Overall survival (months). Results Among 1321 patients (median [IQR] age 70 [63 to 76] years; 713 males [54.0%] and 608 females [46.0%]), 781 patients (59.1%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while in 181 patients (13.7%) it was omitted due to poor patient fitness. Of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 568 patients (72.6%) received contemporary regimens, including GemCap (232 patients [29.7%]), FOLFIRINOX (176 patients [22.5%]), mFOLFIRINOX (71 patients [9.1%]), and S-1 (70 patients [9.0%]). The median (IQR) follow-up for the cohort was 64.2 (40.4 to 85.0) months, and the median overall survival was 73.8 months (95% CI, 66.4 to 81.9 months). After 90-day landmark analysis and exclusion of patients ineligible for chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy vs no adjuvant chemotherapy (propensity score–matched populations, 243:243 patients) was not associated with improved overall survival (median, 82.3 months; 95% CI, 78.2 months to not applicable [NA] vs not reached; 95% CI, 75.3 months to NA; P = .58). Contemporary regimens vs no adjuvant chemotherapy (propensity score–matched populations, 309:309 patients) was not associated with longer survival, and a mean survival benefit greater than 4.2 months over 5 years was excluded (difference in restricted mean survival, 1.26 months; 95%, −1.72 to 4.24 months). Treatment outcomes did not vary by chemotherapy regimen or disease characteristic (eg, N stage or carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with improved overall survival in A-IPMNs, and a randomized clinical trial is indicated.

Abstract Background Glioblastoma IDH-wildtype (GBM) may be diagnosed histologically (hGBM) or based on molecular features when microvascular proliferation and histologic necrosis are absent (mGBM). Clinical and radiographic distinction between hGBM and mGBM remains unclear. Methods 101 hGBM cases were matched to 109 mGBM cases by age, sex, year of diagnosis, and TERT promoter mutation (TERTp) status. Clinical outcome, radiographic, and molecular features were compared across mGBM and hGBM. Results Median time from first MRI to diagnosis was longer for mGBM versus hGBM (34 vs 7 days, p &lt; .001). mGBM more often presented with seizures (51% vs 26%, p &lt; .001), gliomatosis pattern (12% vs 2%, p = .005), basal ganglia involvement (17% vs 0%, p &lt; .001). Contrast enhancement appeared on MRI for 98% (96/98) of hGBM and 50% (54/107) of mGBM (p &lt; .001). mGBM with non-enhancing MRI were rarely multifocal (2% vs 30%, p &lt; .001). mGBM harbored fewer total copy number alterations (median 20 vs 16.5, p = .029), less often had EGFRamp (34% vs 48%, p = .051), isolated chromosome 10 loss (84% vs 96%, p = .013), and CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion (56% vs 77%, p = .005). Median overall survival was longer for mGBM (2.16 vs 1.44 years, p &lt; .001), and for mGBM without MRI contrast enhancement versus hGBM with enhancement (3.11 vs 1.62 years, adjusted p = .003). mGBM without +7/−10 or without CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion had longer survival and time-to-progression versus hGBM with these alterations. Conclusion mGBM with MRI enhancement may represent undersampled or early/evolving hGBM. mGBM that are non-enhancing, present with seizures, prolonged time to diagnosis, absent CDKN2A/B alteration or +7/−10 may represent other IDH-wildtype entities.