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 GBM AGILE(NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies against a common control. Paxalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, is the 3rd arm in the trial to conclude evaluation. METHODS Paxalisib was open to patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and recurrent (RD) glioblastoma, with three possible signatures: NDU, RD, and All(NDU+RD). Arm enrollment occurred Dec2020 through May2022. Control patients were enrolled from study initiation (July2019) and were treated with temozolomide(NDU) or lomustine(RD). GBM AGILE investigational arms have 1 or 2 stages, with adaptive randomization in stage 1 and fixed randomization if arms continue to stage 2. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio(HR) of Arm/Control. Efficacy goal is final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR&lt;1.00 in combined Stages. An Arm continues to Stage 2 if Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8. An Arm stops accruing in Stage 1 if it reaches maximal sample size(N) or does not meet a minimum efficacy threshold (PP&lt;0.25 for all signatures when N&gt;50). Clinical cut-off is 12 months after accrual stops. The maximum N for paxalisib was approximately 150(Stage 1) and 50(Stage 2). RESULTS After paxalisib reached &gt;150 patients in Stage 1, accrual stopped [Paxalisib/control N 54/75(NDU), 100/188(RD)]. Neither PP thresholds for moving to Stage 2 nor stopping for minimum efficacy were met. Following an unplanned public disclosure that the arm did not continue to stage 2, clinical cut-off for final analysis (planned May2023) was updated to public disclosure date (August2022). At final analysis mean HRs were 0.89(NDU), 1.25(RD), 1.05(All), probabilities of HR&lt;1.00 of 0.72(NDU), 0.076(RD), 0.398(All). Model estimated median OS paxalisib/control (months) were 14.77/13.84(NDU) and 8.58/10.06(RD). CONCLUSION Paxalisib did not show survival benefit over cumulative control in final primary analysis; additional secondary analyses are being considered. GBM AGILE continues to rapidly and efficiently assess therapies in ND and RD glioblastoma.

Abstract On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

Abstract Determination of therapeutic benefit in intracranial tumors is intimately dependent on serial assessment of radiographic images. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were established in 2010 to provide an updated framework to better characterize tumor response to contemporary treatments. Since this initial update a number of RANO criteria have provided some basic principles for the interpretation of changes on MR images; however, the details of how to operationalize RANO and other criteria for use in clinical trials are ambiguous and not standardized. In this review article designed for the neuro-oncologist or treating clinician, we outline essential steps for performing radiographic assessments by highlighting primary features of the Imaging Charter (referred to as the Charter for the remainder of this article), a document that describes the clinical trial imaging methodology and methods to ensure operationalization of the Charter into the workings of a clinical trial. Lastly, we provide recommendations for specific changes to optimize this methodology for neuro-oncology, including image registration, requirement of growing tumor for eligibility in trials of recurrent tumor, standardized image acquisition guidelines, and hybrid reader paradigms that allow for both unbiased measurements and more comprehensive interpretation.

2039 Background: Vorinostat (V) is an oral inhibitor of histone deacetylase. In preclinical studies it inhibits growth of glioblastoma (GBM) cell lines and has supra-additive activity when combined with TMZ. Methods: The North American Brain Tumor Consortium (NABTC) is conducting a phase I study of V in combination with TMZ in patients with malignant gliomas (MG). Eligibility criteria are histologically proven GBM and anaplastic gliomas (AG) who have received radiotherapy and have not progressed on temozolomide, > 18 yrs old, life expectancy > 8 weeks, KPS > 60, adequate bone marrow reserve and organ function. There was no limitation to the type of antiepileptic drugs that could be used. All patients received TMZ at a dose of 150 mg/m2/day on days 1–5 days every 28 days. Variable doses of V were administered with food on days 1–14 every 28 days. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), determined during the first 4 weeks of therapy, were defined as any grade 4 hematologic toxicity except for grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and any grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities. Escalation was performed in standard groups of 3. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as the dose at which DLTs occurred in no more than 1/6 patients. PKs were determined on cycle 1 for TMZ, V and its metabolites. Results: To date, 19 eligible patients have been enrolled (15 GBM; 4 AG). Patients’ characteristics are 11 male, 8 female; median age 54 yrs (36–78); median KPS 90 (70–100). DLTs were encountered at 300 mg bid of vorinostat (1 grade 3 thrombocytopenia; 1 grade 3 fatigue in 3 patients), 200 mg tid (1 grade 3 nausea, 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 3 patients) and 200 mg twice daily (grade 3 fatigue in 2/6 patients). No DLTs were encountered in 6 patients receiving 300 mg daily. TMZ PKs included [n=16: Cmax 5.2 (± 1.55) μg/ml; AUC 20.1 (±4.66) μg x hr/ml; t1/2 1.9 (±0.32)/hr]. Vorinostat PKs (300mg dose level) were [n=4; Cmax 267 (±174) ng/ml; AUC0–8 603 (±197) ng x hr/ml]. The t1/2 for V and its glucuronide metabolite were identical (1.6 hrs) vs. 5.6 hrs for the acid metabolite. Conclusions: The MTD of vorinostat in combination with TMZ is 300 mg daily on days 1–14 every 28 days. Final PK results, and toxicities from an additional 10 patients enrolled at the MTD will be presented. [Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: A phase I, dose-finding study of vorinostat in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and pharmacokinetics in patients with high-grade glioma (HGG). Experimental Design: This phase I, dose-finding, investigational study was conducted in two parts. Part 1 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 28 days. Part 2 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m2/day for 5 days of the first cycle and 200 mg/m2/day for 5 days of the subsequent 28-day cycles. Results: In part 1, the MTD of vorinostat administered on days 1 to 7 and 15 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, in combination with TMZ, was 500 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included grade 3 anorexia, grade 3 ALT, and grade 5 hemorrhage in the setting of grade 4 thrombocytopenia. In part 2, the MTD of vorinostat on days 1 to 7 and 15 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, combined with TMZ, was 400 mg daily. No DLTs were encountered, but vorinostat dosing could not be escalated further due to thrombocytopenia. The most common serious adverse events were fatigue, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and thromboembolic events. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between vorinostat and TMZ. Vorinostat treatment resulted in hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 in peripheral mononuclear cells. Conclusion: Vorinostat in combination with temozolomide is well tolerated in patients with HGG. A phase I/II trial of vorinostat with radiotherapy and concomitant TMZ in newly diagnosed glioblastoma is underway. Clin Cancer Res; 18(21); 6032–9. ©2012 AACR.

Purpose The clinical significance of epidermal growth factor receptor variant III (EGFRvIII) expression in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and its relationship with other key molecular markers are not clear. We sought to evaluate the clinical significance of GBM subtypes as defined by EGFRvIII status. Patients and Methods The expression of EGFRvIII was assessed by immunohistochemistry in 649 patients with newly diagnosed GBM. These data were then examined in conjunction with the expression of phospho-intermediates (in a subset of these patients) of downstream AKT and Ras pathways and YKL-40 as well as with known clinical risk factors, including the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group's recursive partitioning analysis (RTOG-RPA) class. Results The RTOG-RPA class was highly predictive of survival in EGFRvIII-negative patients but much less predictive in EGFRvIII-positive patients. These findings were seen in both an initial test set (n = 268) and a larger validation set (n = 381). Similarly, activation of the AKT/MAPK pathways and YKL-40 positivity were predictive of poor outcome in EGFRvIII-negative patients but not in EGFRvIII-positive patients. Pair-wise combinations of markers identified EGFRvIII and YKL-40 as prognostically important. In particular, outcome in patients with EGFRvIII-negative/YKL-40–negative tumors was significantly better than the outcome in patients with the other three combinations of these two markers. Conclusion Established prognostic factors in GBM were not predictive of outcome in the EGFRvIII-positive subset, although this requires confirmation in independent data sets. GBMs negative for both EGFRvIII and YKL-40 show less aggressive behavior.