Chang, Susan M.

Abstract IDH-wildtype diffuse astrocytic gliomas with lower-grade histological features alongside specific genomic alterations (e.g., TERT promoter mutation, EGFR amplification, gain Chr7/loss Chr10) are presently diagnosed as glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype (GBM) under WHO 2021 criteria. Previous analyses categorized these into “early/evolving” or “surgically undersampled” GBMs. However, it remains unclear whether these tumors share identical clinical and prognostic features with histologic GBM. Data from IDH-wt molecular GBMs across six institutions were aggregated. Astrocytic IDH-wt tumors of any grade that lacked necrosis or microvascular proliferation on initial histopathology yet exhibited molecular alterations consistent with WHO 2021 GBM diagnosis, were included. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to categorize patients into risk groups based on overall survival (OS). Among the 264 patients included, the median age was 60 years (IQR: 51-67), with 162 (61%) being male. Additionally, 210 (80%) were diagnosed since 2016, and 216 (82%) received chemoradiation plus adjuvant temozolomide (GBM-SOC). The median follow-up period was 3.9 years (95% CI: 3.4, 4.6). Identified univariate risk factors for worse survival included older age, biopsy-only status, EGFR amplification, absence of initial adjuvant treatment, low post-operative KPS, and tumor histologic grade of 3. RPA divided patients into four distinct survival groups (p<0.0001). The “best” risk group comprised lower grade (<=2) tumors (n=58, median OS (mOS): 40 months (95% CI: 33, NA)). The “second best” group included Grade 3 patients receiving GBM-SOC without steroids during initial RT (n=139, mOS: 25 months (95% CI: 22, 28)). The “second worst” group encompassed Grade 3 patients who were on steroids during initial RT while receiving GBM-SOC (n=38, mOS: 15 months (95% CI: 13, 20)). The “worst” group contained Grade 3 tumors that had not undergone SOC (n=29, mOS: 9 months (95% CI: 4, 26)). These data show that histologic features and treatment are strong indicators of patient outcomes.

Abstract This review explores the pivotal role of preanalytical variables in bringing liquid biopsy approaches into the clinic for brain tumors. Preanalytical variables encompass a range of critical issues, from blood sample collection and handling to the impact of tumor heterogeneity and patient-specific factors. These variables introduce challenges such as false positives, false negatives, and variability in the analysis of tumor signals, which can hinder the diagnostic and prognostic utility of liquid biopsies. Understanding the nuances of preanalytical variables is essential for the successful implementation of liquid biopsy in clinical settings. This paper delves into strategies aimed at mitigating the influence of preanalytical variables by emphasizing the importance of standardized sample collection protocols, optimized sample processing and storage, quality control measures, and the integration of multiple liquid biopsy modalities.

Abstract Background Instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes (PRO) should generate high-quality evidence. Reliable PRO evidence is essential to policymakers, in conjunction with outcomes such as survival and radiological response, to understand the net clinical benefit of antitumor treatments. This study aimed to establish the content validity of 215 identified PRO measures used in patients with brain tumors. Methods A survey (n = 148 items) was developed reflecting aspects of the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Patients with brain tumors, their proxies, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) were asked to rate each survey item on relevance. An item was considered a relevant issue if ≥25% of the patients or proxies or ≥50% of the HCPs considered that item to be an issue. Next, all items in the identified PRO measures were linked to ICF and relevant items in the survey, and the percentage of content coverage was calculated. Results In total, 114 patients, 71 proxies, and 65 HCPs from different countries completed the survey. Fifty-six of 148 (37.8%) items in the survey were considered relevant. The most important aspects mentioned by both patients and proxies were difficulty concentrating, difficulty remembering, multitasking, and handling stress. Depending on the definition, between 35% and 49% of PRO measures were considered to have sufficient content validity (≥80% coverage). Conclusion The content validity was insufficient in more than half of the identified PRO measures, particularly multidimensional measures. Future research should investigate whether different approaches to PRO assessment better meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Abstract Current standard of care for IDH-wildtype glioblastoma (GBM) includes maximal safe resection, adjuvant radiation, and chemotherapy with the alkylating agent temozolomide. A subset of gliomas treated with temozolomide develop somatic hypermutation with a predominance of C>T transitions due to the alkylation effects on DNA. However, the frequency of occurrence, clinical ramifications, and predictive biomarkers for developing temozolomide-induced hypermutation (TMZ-HM) in GBM are unknown. Here we performed comprehensive histopathologic, genomic, and epigenomic evaluation of paired initial and recurrent GBM from 106 patients. Seven patients (7%) developed hypermutation at time of first recurrence, while an additional five patients (5%) developed hypermutation at a subsequent recurrence. Patients who developed TMZ-HM had a significantly longer interval between initial surgery and first recurrence (27.8 vs. 9.9 months, p<0.001). In contrast to IDH-mutant gliomas where TMZ-HM is associated with poor prognosis, those patients with IDH-wildtype GBM who developed TMZ-HM had significantly longer overall survival from both initial surgery (67.9 vs. 20.3 months, p<0.001) and from time of recurrence after development of hypermutation (30.9 vs. 9.5 months, p=0.001). There was no difference in oncogenic alteration frequency in initial GBM that subsequently developed TMZ-HM. However, 4 specific CpG sites out of 12 total interrogated sites in the promoter region of MGMT (a DNA repair enzyme) and 5 specific CpG sites in the promoter region of KCNQ1DN (a negative regulator of c-Myc) were significantly more hypermethylated in those GBM that developed TMZ-HM. We then generated a weighted risk score across these CpG sites that can be used to prospectively identify GBM likely to develop TMZ-HM associated with favorable survival. In summary, patients with GBM that develop TMZ-HM follow a more favorable clinical course, and specific MGMT and KCNQ1DN promoter hypermethylation patterns could serve as a biomarker to identify these patients who may potentially benefit from extended alkylating chemotherapy treatment.

Abstract Durable overall response rate (ORR) remains a meaningful endpoint in recurrent GBM; however, the target ORR for single arm recurrent GBM trials has not been based on historic information or tied to patient outcomes. The current study reviewed past trials in recurrent GBM in order to judiciously define target ORRs for use in recurrent GBM trials. After reviewing 69 treatment arms comprising 4,971 patients, ORR was 6.1%[95% CI 4.23; 8.76%] for cytotoxic chemotherapies (ORR=7.59% for CCNU, 7.57% for TMZ, 0.64% for CPT-11, and 5.32% for other agents), 3.37% for biologic agents, 7.97% for immunotherapies (select trials), and 26.8% for anti-angiogenic agents. ORRs were significantly correlated with median overall survival (mOS) across chemotherapy (R2=0.4078, P< 0.0001), biologics (R2=0.4003, P=0.0003), and immunotherapy trials (R2=0.8994, P< 0.0001), but not anti-angiogenic agents (R2=0, P=0.8937). Pooling data from chemotherapy, biologics, and immunotherapy trials, a meta-analysis indicated a strong correlation between ORR and mOS (R2=0.3164, P< 0.0001; mOS[weeks]=0.6xORR+28.9), suggesting an ORR >20% results in an mOS of > 40.9 weeks, which is double the survival estimate of a treatment with ORR=0% and ≥ 2 months longer than treatments with ORR=5%. Assuming an ineffective therapy (control) has ORR=5%, a trial of 32 patients with a target ORR=20% leads to the 95% confidence interval higher than the control group. We conclude that single arm phase II studies in recurrent GBM with ≥ 32 patients should have a target ORR ≥ 20%. This was associated with a median OS of approximately 1 year. Importantly, durability of response should also be considered and was not assessed in the current meta-analysis.

Abstract Despite major strides in cancer research, care, and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Groups underrepresented in medicine (URM) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black and Latino Americans represent 29% of the population but only reflect 8% of oncology clinical trial participants. Recent studies have shown that this disparity is also present in neuro-oncology as women, Black, and Latino Americans remain under-accrued in clinical trials. Brain tumor patients already face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific conditions–such as impaired motor function, cognition, language deficits, and caregiver dependency–which pose additional difficulties in clinical trial consent, enrollment, and adherence. As part of this collaborative initiative, we evaluated the impact of how a lack of diversity in cancer research is detrimental to scientific discovery and propose interventions focused on improving URM engagement with clinical research. Recommendations include the creation of inclusive trial design at the onset, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, and equitable access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials. Additionally, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual and engagement with patient and community stakeholders will ultimately help to diversify trial participants. Lastly, diversification and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology workforce, including all personnel involved in clinical research, will help to minimize bias, promote concordant care, and assist with developing sustainable solutions. The diversification of participation in neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. The lack of diversity in clinical trials can contribute to improper generalizability of treatment efficacy, resulting in potentially harmful practices. Equitable access and inclusion of URM brain tumor patients will not only enhance research discoveries but will also result in improved patient care for all cancer patients.

Abstract Background There is an extensive literature highlighting the utility of blood-based liquid biopsies in several extracranial tumors for diagnosis and monitoring. Methods The RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) group developed a multidisciplinary international Task Force to review the English literature on liquid biopsy in gliomas focusing on the most frequently used techniques, that is circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells, and extracellular vesicles in blood and CSF. Results ctDNA has a higher sensitivity and capacity to represent the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in comparison to circulating tumor cells. Exosomes have the advantages to cross an intact blood-brain barrier and carry also RNA, miRNA, and proteins. Several clinical applications of liquid biopsies are suggested: to establish a diagnosis when tissue is not available, monitor the residual disease after surgery, distinguish progression from pseudoprogression, and predict the outcome. Conclusions There is a need for standardization of biofluid collection, choice of an analyte, and detection strategies along with rigorous testing in future clinical trials to validate findings and enable entry into clinical practice.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel–novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel–novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel–novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design.

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.

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.