Wen, Patrick Y.

2017 Background: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade and low-grade glioma (HGG and LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Several limitations of the original RANO criteria have been reported. Methods: To address limitations of the original RANO criteria, a large cohort of patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma were evaluated comparing RANO-HGG with modified RANO (mRANO) and immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria to inform the following proposed updates (RANO 2.0). Results: Based on the 2021 WHO classification of glioma, we recommend a single common set of criteria for all gliomas regardless of WHO grade and IDH mutational status. These criteria will be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the post-radiotherapy MRI, usually obtained approximately 4 weeks after completion of radiotherapy, rather than the post-surgical MRI as proposed in original RANO criteria, will be used as the baseline for comparison of subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the first 3 months following radiotherapy, confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI (in 4-8 weeks) will be required for determining radiographic progression of disease (PD) if the patient is clinically stable. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors since these scans do not appear to improve reliability in determining progression. For agents with a high likelihood of producing pseudoprogression such as viral therapies and some other immunotherapies, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement will remain the 2-dimensional maximum cross-sectional area of tumor as the simplest method, but where resources are available, volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type tumors with contrast enhancement, non-enhancing tumor will no longer be evaluated with the possible exception of patients receiving antiangiogenic therapies. However, in tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, both the contrast enhancing and non-enhancing components will be evaluated as target lesions. Conclusions: We hope that these and other proposed changes by the RANO working group will improve response assessment in glioma clinical trials and help the development of more effective therapy for patients.

Advances in molecular profiling have led to improved understanding of glioma heterogeneity. Results have been used to inform diagnostic classification and targeted treatment strategies. Validation of these tests is necessary in the development of biomarkers that can aid in treatment decision, allowing for personalized medicine in neuro-oncologic diseases. Although not all populations have benefitted equally from awareness of and access to testing, opportunities arise regarding incorporating this testing into the standard of care for patients with glioma.

The NCCN Guidelines for Central Nervous System (CNS) Cancers focus on management of the following adult CNS cancers: glioma (WHO grade 1, WHO grade 2–3 oligodendroglioma [1p19q codeleted, IDH- mutant], WHO grade 2–4 IDH- mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 4 glioblastoma), intracranial and spinal ependymomas, medulloblastoma, limited and extensive brain metastases, leptomeningeal metastases, non–AIDS-related primary CNS lymphomas, metastatic spine tumors, meningiomas, and primary spinal cord tumors. The information contained in the algorithms and principles of management sections in the NCCN Guidelines for CNS Cancers are designed to help clinicians navigate through the complex management of patients with CNS tumors. Several important principles guide surgical management and treatment with radiotherapy and systemic therapy for adults with brain tumors. The NCCN CNS Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding molecular profiling of gliomas.

Abstract Durable objective response rate (ORR) remains a meaningful endpoint in recurrent cancer; however, the target ORR for single-arm recurrent glioblastoma trials has not been based on historic information or tied to patient outcomes. The current study reviewed 68 treatment arms comprising 4793 patients in past trials in recurrent glioblastoma in order to judiciously define target ORRs for use in recurrent glioblastoma trials. ORR was estimated at 6.1% [95% CI 4.23; 8.76%] for cytotoxic chemothera + pies (ORR = 7.59% for lomustine, 7.57% for temozolomide, 0.64% for irinotecan, and 5.32% for other agents), 3.37% for biologic agents, 7.97% for (select) immunotherapies, and 26.8% for anti-angiogenic agents. ORRs were significantly correlated with median overall survival (mOS) across chemotherapy (R2= 0.4078, P < .0001), biologics (R2= 0.4003, P = .0003), and immunotherapy trials (R2= 0.8994, P < .0001), but not anti-angiogenic agents (R2= 0, P = .8937). Pooling data from chemotherapy, biologics, and immunotherapy trials, a meta-analysis indicated a strong correlation between ORR and mOS (R2= 0.3900, P < .0001; mOS [weeks] = 1.4xORR + 24.8). Assuming an ineffective cytotoxic (control) therapy has ORR = 7.6%, the average ORR for lomustine and temozolomide trials, a sample size of ≥40 patients with target ORR>25% is needed to demonstrate statistical significance compared to control with a high level of confidence (P < .01) and adequate power (>80%). Given this historic data and potential biases in patient selection, we recommend that well-controlled, single-arm phase II studies in recurrent glioblastoma should have a target ORR >25% (which translates to a median OS of approximately 15 months) and a sample size of ≥40 patients, in order to convincingly demonstrate antitumor activity. Crucially, this response needs to have sufficient durability, which was not addressed in the current study.

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 Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant gliomas are the most common adult, malignant primary brain tumors diagnosed in patients younger than 50, constituting an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, sparking multiple efforts to improve their diagnosis and treatment. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), the current diagnosis and management of IDH-mutant gliomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies, such as targeted molecular therapies and immunotherapies, will be reviewed. Current challenges and future directions for research will be discussed.

2012 Background: Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. We report on the feasibility and conduct of this approach. Methods: Tumor genotyping was performed prior to treatment assignment on eligible participants with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma to identify biomarker signatures. Initial randomization was 1:1:1:1 between control (temozolomide) and 3 experimental arms (abemaciclib, CC-115, and neratinib). Subsequent randomization was adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-naïve and biomarker-specific probabilities of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective or toxic arms were discontinued by protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: INSIGhT randomized 71 patients to the control arm, 73 patients to the abemaciclib arm, 12 patients to the CC-115 arm, and 81 patients to the neratinib arm between 2/9/2017 and 5/14/2021. Following the initial equal randomization period, early data were repeatedly analyzed during the study to capture early signals of treatment effects across the enrolled population or in specific biomarker subgroups. The results of these interim analyses influenced the randomization probability for future enrolled patients. In total, 77% of the participants were randomized before assessing their biomarker profile and 23% were biomarker randomized. The CC-115 arm opened and closed three times during the safety lead-in. The randomization probability to the CC-115 arm decreased based on poor early PFS results and the arm eventually closed after 12 patients due to toxicity. The randomization probability to the abemacicilb arm increased based on promising early PFS results. After the completion of accrual into the abemaciclib arm, the trial switched to block randomization to finish enrolling into the remaining neratinib and control arms. A total of 28 interim analyses and 32 randomization tables were created throughout the course of the trial with 4 adjustments (3 due to CC-115 closures and 1 due to completion of the abemaciclib arm). Biomarker association trends for neratinib and abemaciclib were similar to those seen in preclinical modeling of the trial. Conclusions: Relative to a standard randomization design, the adaptive platform design facilitated more efficient and economical testing of experimental arms by sharing a control arm, decreasing the probability of enrollment to potentially ineffective arms, and increasing the probability of enrollment to potentially effective arms. Additional future arms are planned on INSIGhT. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

2026 Background: Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis. Methods: Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the inter-observer pairwise agreement. Results: Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions. Conclusions: This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with “blocking options” may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.

Abstract Brain metastases occur commonly in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Yet, less is known about brain metastases than cancer-related entities of similar incidence. Advances in oncologic care have heightened the importance of intracranial management. Here, in this consensus review supported by the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), we review the landscape of brain metastases with particular attention to management approaches and ongoing efforts with potential to shape future paradigms of care. Each coauthor carried an area of expertise within the field of brain metastases and initially composed, edited, or reviewed their specific subsection of interest. After each subsection was accordingly written, multiple drafts of the manuscript were circulated to the entire list of authors for group discussion and feedback. The hope is that the these consensus guidelines will accelerate progress in the understanding and management of patients with brain metastases, and highlight key areas in need of further exploration that will lead to dedicated trials and other research investigations designed to advance the field.