Reardon, David A.

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.

Abstract Background: Glioblastoma recurrence is inevitable despite aggressive surgical resection of contrast enhancing (CE) tumor. Unlike the deep molecular characterization of CE glioblastoma, unresected infiltrating tumor, representing minimal residual disease (MRD) has not been well profiled. Increasingly, clinical trials are being conducted in the MRD setting for glioblastoma patients, necessitating understanding of unresected infiltrating tumor for targeted therapeutic development. Methods: Visium HD spatial transcriptomics was used to profile a cohort of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve glioblastoma patients that underwent supramaximal resection, with both core and infiltrating in situ components. Spatial profiles generated expression signatures of infiltrative and CE tumor. For in silico prediction of therapeutics targeting the MRD, expression signatures of infiltrative and CE tumor were compared with drug perturbation signatures from the NIH L1000 database using the sRGES method to predict reversal of disease expression patterns. IC50 data from human cell lines were aggregated from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer or individual study data while blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetrance was predicted using the CNS-MPO approach. Findings: Infiltrative tumor expression profiles were enriched for genes corresponding to neural and oligodendrocyte progenitor like cells. In contrast CE glioblastoma displayed mesenchymal and astrocytic programs, suggesting spatial concentration of glioblastoma states within MRD and CE tumor. For CE glioblastoma, proteasome inhibitors and glucocorticoid receptor agonists were predicted to have the highest antitumor activity. In contrast, histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) were highly ranked for MRD while exhibiting low predicted efficacy in CE tumor. Synergy analysis of drug candidates provided multiple dual treatment options for both the CE and MRD contexts. Conclusions: Cumulatively, these data indicate that the resected tumor does not reflect the MRD state, providing clarity on why targeted therapeutics for glioblastoma have not been particularly successful. Spatial profiling of the MRD demonstrates vulnerability to unique drug targets, which if utilized in the correct setting could confer greater survival benefit. Citation Format: Harrshavasan Congivaram, Shashwat Tripathi, Mateo Gomez, Katy McCortney, Ching Man Wai, Ruochen Du, Thomas K. Sears, Jianzhong Zhang, Daniel J. Brat, Craig M. Horbinski, Mark W. Youngblood, Jared T. Ahrendsen, Adam M. Sonabend, Stephen T. Magill, Matthew C. Tate, Maciej S. Lesniak, Sean Sachdev, Timothy Sita, Priya Kumthekar, Karan Dixit, Robin Buerki, Ditte Primdahl, Mustafa Khasraw, John de Groot, David A. Reardon, Rimas V. Lukas, Roger Stupp, Amy B. Heimberger. In silico screening of therapeutics candidates targeting minimal residual disease in glioblastoma [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 2496.

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 Glioblastoma is the most common type of malignant primary brain tumor and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In 2021, the World Health Organization updated the classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors to restrict glioblastomas to isocitrate dehydrogenase-wildtype (IDHwt) tumors, improving understanding of the prognosis and optimal therapy for these tumors. This revision also enables more homogeneous populations of patients to be enrolled in clinical trials, facilitating the evaluation of novel therapies. In this updated consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of patients with glioblastoma is discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as immunotherapies, viral therapies, targeted molecular therapies, theranostics, and antibody–drug conjugates will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Abstract Background Despite advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of meningioma progression and innovations in systemic and local treatments, recurrent meningiomas remain a substantial therapeutic challenge. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a historical baseline, contemporary analysis, and propose a “rate of probable interest” to inform future clinical trial design and development on behalf of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology meningioma group. Methods PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ASCOpubs databases were screened for clinical trials evaluating the activity of systemic therapies for adults with recurrent meningiomas. The pooled progression-free survival at 6-months and 1-year (PFS-6 and PFS-1 year) values were calculated using the random effects technique with I2 indices. Results The pooled PFS-6 and PFS-1 year rates for recurrent WHO grade 1 meningiomas were 43.6% (95% CI: 22.7-67.0%, I2 = 80%) and 21.7% (95% CI: 6.2-53.9%, I2 = 76%), and for grades 2-3 meningiomas, the PFS-6 was 38.0% (95% CI: 28.3-48.8%, I2 = 68%). In the targeted therapy group, PFS-6 and PFS-1 year rates stood at 62.0% (I2 = 58%) and 49.0% (I2 = 63%) for grade 1, while for grades 2-3 tumors, the PFS-6 rates with targeted therapy and immunotherapy were 42.1% (I² = 60%) and 46.0% (I² = 0%), respectively. The benchmarks were set at 67% and 54% for PFS-6 and PFS-1 year for grade 1 tumors, and PFS-6 of 49% for grades 2-3 tumors. Conclusions Several studies have reported outcomes in patients with recurrent meningiomas testing a variety of agents with modest, but variable and progressively increasing activity. In this context, we recommend new benchmarks for future trials to define efficacy of future investigational therapies.

Abstract Background Glioblastoma (GBM) has a median survival of <2 years. Pexidartinib (PLX3397) is a small-molecule inhibitor of CSF1R, KIT, and oncogenic FTL3, which are implicated in GBM treatment resistance. Results from glioma models indicate that combining radiation therapy (RT) and pexidartinib reduces radiation resistance. We added pexidartinib to standard-of-care RT/temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM to assess the therapeutic benefit of altering the tumor microenvironment with pexidartinib. Methods In this open-label, dose-escalation, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 trial, pexidartinib was administered in combination with RT/TMZ followed by adjuvant pexidartinib + TMZ. During Phase 1b, pexidartinib was given 5 or 7 days/week at multiple dosing levels. The primary Phase 1b endpoint was the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Phase 2 patients received the RP2D with the primary endpoint of median progression-free survival (mPFS). Secondary objectives were median overall survival (mOS), pharmacokinetics, and safety. Results The RP2D of pexidartinib was 800 mg/day for 5 days/week during RT/TMZ, followed by 800 mg/day for 7 days/week with adjuvant TMZ. mPFS was 6.7 months (90% CI: 4.5, 11.5) for the modified intention-to-treat population. The actual mOS was 13.1 months (90% CI: 11.5, 24.5), and the mOS corrected for comparison with matched historical controls was 18.8 months (95% CI: 12.6, 28.0). Conclusions This trial established the RP2D of pexidartinib in combination with RT/TMZ and adjuvant TMZ. Pexidartinib was generally safe and well tolerated. Although the study regimen with pexidartinib was not efficacious, pharmacodynamic studies showed modulation of systemic markers that could lead to alteration of the tumor microenvironment.

Abstract BACKGROUND Leveraging external data has the potential to increase efficiency and precision of drug development in glioblastoma by complementing or replacing data from in-trial controls. We used an external control arm (ECA) to re-analyze data of the abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115 arms of the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. METHODS INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is an ongoing phase 2 adaptive platform trial in newly diagnosed MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma with a shared control arm of patients receiving radiation therapy with concurrent and maintenance temozolomide. The initial experimental arms (abemaciclib, neratinib, CC-115) have not shown a survival benefit relative to the shared control arm. We re-analyzed the experimental arm data and replaced the shared control arm with an ECA. The ECA was developed from a collection of trial datasets and real-world data available through the Glioblastoma External (GBM-X) Data Platform (). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for possible differences between pretreatment covariates (age, sex, resection, KPS) in the ECA and shared control arm. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS On INSIGhT, patients were randomized to abemaciclib (n = 74), neratinib (n = 80), and CC-115 (n = 12). There were 687 unmethylated MGMT patients in the GBM-X ECA. After propensity score matching, there was no significant treatment effect associated with abemaciclib (HR 1.091, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.536), neratinib (HR = 1.043, 95%CI:0.787-1.383, p = 0.770), or CC-115 (HR 1.088, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.794) compared to the ECA. CONCLUSION In comparison to an ECA, there was no significant survival benefit with abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115. Treatment effects estimates were similar to the primary analyses based on the original shared control arm of INSIGhT. The use of external control arms in early phase testing of new therapies is supported by our findings and could significantly reduce costs and time to conduct trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Abstract BACKGROUND Craniopharyngiomas, primary brain tumors of the pituitary-hypothalamic axis, can cause significant clinical sequelae. Treatment using surgery, radiation, or both often entails significant morbidity. In prior work, we demonstrated that ninety-five percent of papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCP) harbor BRAF V600E mutations (Brastianos et al. Nature Genetics 2014). In this multicenter National Cancer Institute cooperative group trial (Alliance A071601), we evaluated the safety and efficacy of BRAF/MEK inhibition in patients with PCP without prior irradiation. METHODS Eligible patients, with measurable disease and whose PCP screened positively for BRAF mutations, without prior radiation, received the BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination vemurafenib/cobimetinib in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint of objective response rate at 4 months based on centrally determined volumetric data was evaluated in 16 patients on this single arm phase 2 trial. RESULTS Based on volumetric response criteria by central radiology review, 15 of 16 patients (94%; 95% CI: 70% to 100%) had a durable objective partial response to therapy. Thus, this study met primary endpoint for overall response rate. The median tumor reduction was 91% (range of 68% to 99%). Median follow-up was 22 months (95% CI: 19 to 30 months) and median number of treatment cycles was 8. Median progression-free survival and duration of response were not yet reached. Three patients progressed during follow-up after therapy was discontinued; none have died. The sole non-responder stopped treatment after eight days due to toxicity. Grade 3 toxicities at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 12 patients (rash in 6 patients). Grade 4 toxicities were observed in two patients: hyperglycemia (n=1) and increased creatine phosphokinase (n=1). Three patients discontinued treatment for adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors are a safe and effective treatment for PCP without prior irradiation. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180868 (NRG); Genentech; . ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03224767.

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.