Citations

PURPOSE In patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), brentuximab vedotin (BV) as monotherapy or combined with either lenalidomide (Len) or rituximab (R) has demonstrated efficacy with acceptable safety. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of BV + Len + R versus placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. METHODS ECHELON-3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing BV + Len + R with placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. Patients received BV or placebo once every 3 weeks, Len once daily, and R once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). A prespecified interim analysis was performed after 134 OS events, with two-sided P = .0232 as the efficacy boundary. RESULTS Patients (N = 230) were randomly assigned to receive BV + Len + R (n = 112) or placebo + Len + R (n = 118). Two patients in the placebo arm did not receive treatment. With a median follow-up of 16.4 months, the median OS was 13.8 months with BV + Len + R versus 8.5 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.89]; two-sided P = .009). The median PFS was 4.2 months with BV + Len + R versus 2.6 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73]; two-sided P < .001). The ORR was 64% ([95% CI, 55 to 73]; two-sided P < .001) with BV + Len + R and 42% (95% CI, 33 to 51) with placebo + Len + R; complete response rates were 40% and 19%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of patients in both arms. In both arms, the most common treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and anemia. CONCLUSION BV + Len + R demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL.

LBA7005 Background: Despite recent advances, there remains a need for novel therapies for pts with R/R DLBCL. BV, an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, has shown efficacy and safety when combined with lenalidomide (len) and with rituximab (R) in heavily pretreated populations (Bartlett 2022; Ward 2022). The double-blind, global phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) compared BV with R+len (R2) vs R2 in pts with R/R DLBCL who are ineligible for HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy. Here, we present results from the interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts with R/R DLBCL received BV+R2 or placebo+R2 (randomized 1:1). Pts received BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo q3w, R (375 mg/m2) q3w, and len (20 mg) qd. The primary endpoint was OS in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. The preplanned IA was performed at 134 OS events with a prespecified efficacy boundary of 2-sided P=0.0232. Results: 230 pts were randomized: 112 to BV+R2 and 118 to R2; all but 2 pts (both in R2 arm) received ≥1 dose of study drug. Median age was 71 yrs (range, 21-89), 56.5% were male, and 10.9% had an ECOG of 2. Median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-8); 29% had prior CAR T-cell therapy and 68% were CD30- (<1% CD30 tumor expression). At median follow-up of 16.4 months (mos) (range, 0.1-31.5) (cut-off: January 22, 2024), median OS was 13.8 mos (95% CI: 10.3-18.8) with BV+R2 vs 8.5 mos (95% CI: 5.4-11.7) with R2 (HR 0.629; 95% CI: 0.445-0.891; P=0.0085); OS benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Median PFS was 4.2 mos (95% CI: 2.9-7.1) with BV+R2 vs 2.6 mos (95% CI: 1.4-3.1) with R2 (HR 0.527; 95% CI: 0.380-0.729; P<0.0001). ORR was 64.3% (95% CI: 54.7-73.1) with BV+R2 vs 41.5% with R2 (95% CI: 32.5-51.0; P=0.0006); CR rate was 40.2% vs 18.6%, respectively. In CD30+ vs CD30- subgroups, ORR/CR was 72.2%/38.9% vs 60.5%/40.8% with BV+R2, respectively, and 50.0%/26.3% vs 37.5%/15.0% with R2, respectively. Efficacy analysis including cell of origin will be presented. The safety profile of BV+R2 was tolerable vs R2: Grade (Gr) ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 88% vs 77%, serious TEAEs were 60% vs 50%, and Gr 5 TEAEs were 12% vs 8%, respectively. Most common TEAEs were neutropenia (46% vs 32%), anemia (29% vs 27%), and diarrhea (31% vs 23%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy for BV+R2 vs R2 were 31% vs 24% (all Gr) and 6% vs 2% (Gr 3). Median treatment duration was 3.6 mos with BV+R2 vs 2.0 mos with R2. Conclusions: Treatment with BV+R2 triplet, compared to R2, demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in all key efficacy outcomes including OS in high-risk subgroups, with manageable safety. This triplet regimen represents a novel treatment option for pts with heavily pretreated R/R DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT04404283 .

PURPOSE The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time, some limitations of these criteria were identified, and challenges emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. METHODS Informed by data from studies evaluating the different criteria, updates to the RANO criteria are proposed (RANO 2.0). RESULTS We recommend a standard set of criteria for both high- and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the postradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than the postsurgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for comparison with subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks after radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, are required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for the evaluation of treatment for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (two-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type glioblastoma, the nonenhancing disease will no longer be evaluated except when assessing response to antiangiogenic agents. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant nonenhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and nonenhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION The revised RANO 2.0 criteria refine response assessment in gliomas.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, the RANO working group developed updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). RESULTS Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION These criteria represent a work in progress that will hopefully improve the assessment of response in glioma trials. Future updates will incorporate novel developments, advanced imaging techniques, and endpoints as they become validated.

Abstract The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve the reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, we propose updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the basis of the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOTs) are chemotherapy-sensitive brain tumors. We report the final very long-term survival results from European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 phase III trials initiated in 1990s, which both studied radiotherapy with/without neo/adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) for newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. The median follow-up duration in both was 18-19 years. For European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951, median, 14-year, and probable 20-year overall survival rates without versus with PCV were 2.6 years, 13.4%, and 10.1% versus 3.5 years, 25.1%, and 16.8% (N = 368 overall; hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = .033), with 1p19q codeletion 9.3 years, 26.2%, and 13.6% versus 14.2 years, 51.0%, and 37.1% (n = 80; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03; P = .063), respectively. For Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402, analogous results were 4.8 years, 16.5%, and 11.2% versus 4.8 years, 29.1%, and 24.6% (N = 289 overall; HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03; P = .08), with codeletion 7.3 years, 25.0%, and 14.9% versus 13.2 years, 46.1%, and 37% (n = 125; HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = .02), respectively. With that, the studies show similar long-term survival even without tumor recurrence in a significant proportion of patients after first-line treatment with radiotherapy/PCV.

Abstract Background: Over 20 susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) have been identified for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor, Barrett esophagus (BE), explaining a small portion of heritability. Methods: Using genetic data from 4,323 BE and 4,116 EAC patients aggregated by international consortia including the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON), we conducted a comprehensive transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) for BE/EAC, leveraging Genotype Tissue Expression (GTEx) gene-expression data from six tissue types of plausible relevance to EAC etiology: mucosa and muscularis from the esophagus, gastroesophageal (GE) junction, stomach, whole blood, and visceral adipose. Two analytical approaches were taken: standard TWAS using the predicted gene expression from local expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL), and set-based SKAT association using selected eQTLs that predict the gene expression. Results: Although the standard approach did not identify significant signals, the eQTL set–based approach identified eight novel associations, three of which were validated in independent external data (eQTL SNP sets for EXOC3, ZNF641, and HSP90AA1). Conclusions: This study identified novel genetic susceptibility loci for EAC and BE using an eQTL set–based genetic association approach. Impact: This study expanded the pool of genetic susceptibility loci for EAC and BE, suggesting the potential of the eQTL set–based genetic association approach as an alternative method for TWAS analysis.

PURPOSE This study sought to determine the prognostic significance of the WHO-defined glioma molecular subgroups along with additional alterations, including MGMT promoter methylation and mutations in ATRX, CIC, FUBP1, TERT, and TP53, in NRG/RTOG 0424 using long-term follow-up data. METHODS Mutations were determined using an Ion Torrent sequencing panel. 1p/19q co-deletion and MGMT promoter methylation were determined by Affymetrix OncoScan and Illumina 450K arrays. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and tested using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model. Multivariable analyses (MVAs) included patient pretreatment characteristics. RESULTS We obtained complete molecular data to categorize 80/129 eligible patients within the WHO subgroups. Of these, 26 (32.5%) were IDHmutant/co-deleted, 28 (35%) were IDHmutant/non-co-deleted, and 26 (32.5%) were IDHwild-type. Upon single-marker MVA, both IDHmutant subgroups were associated with significantly better OS and PFS ( P values < .001), compared with the IDHwild-type subgroup. MGMT promoter methylation was obtained on 76 patients, where 58 (76%) were methylated and 18 (24%) were unmethylated. Single-marker MVAs demonstrated that MGMT promoter methylation was statistically significant for OS ( P value < .001) and PFS ( P value = .003). In a multimarker MVA, one WHO subgroup comparison ( IDHmutant/co-deleted v IDHwild-type) was significant for OS ( P value = .045), whereas MGMT methylation did not retain significance. CONCLUSION This study reports the long-term prognostic effect of the WHO molecular subgroups, MGMT promoter methylation, and other mutations in NRG/RTOG 0424. These results demonstrate that the WHO molecular classification and MGMT both serve as strong prognostic indicators, but that MGMT does not appear to add statistically significant prognostic value to the WHO subgrouping, above and beyond IDH and 1p/19q status.