Martinez-Lage, Maria

PURPOSE Patients with progressive or recurrent meningiomas have limited systemic therapy options. Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) inhibition has a synthetic lethal relationship with NF2 loss. Given the predominance of NF2 mutations in meningiomas, we evaluated the efficacy of GSK2256098, a FAK inhibitor, as part of the first genomically driven phase II study in recurrent or progressive grade 1-3 meningiomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients whose tumors screened positively for NF2 mutations were treated with GSK2256098, 750 mg orally twice daily, until progressive disease. Efficacy was evaluated using two coprimary end points: progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6) and response rate by Macdonald criteria, where PFS6 was evaluated separately within grade-based subgroups: grade 1 versus 2/3 meningiomas. Per study design, the FAK inhibitor would be considered promising in this patient population if either end point met the corresponding decision criteria for efficacy. RESULTS Of 322 patients screened for all mutation cohorts of the study, 36 eligible and evaluable patients with NF2 mutations were enrolled and treated: 12 grade 1 and 24 grade 2/3 patients. Across all grades, one patient had a partial response and 24 had stable disease as their best response to treatment. In grade 1 patients, the observed PFS6 rate was 83% (10/12 patients; 95% CI, 52 to 98). In grade 2/3 patients, the observed PFS6 rate was 33% (8/24 patients; 95% CI, 16 to 55). The study met the PFS6 efficacy end point both for the grade 1 and the grade 2/3 cohorts. Treatment was well tolerated; seven patients had a maximum grade 3 adverse event that was at least possibly related to treatment with no grade 4 or 5 events. CONCLUSION GSK2256098 was well tolerated and resulted in an improved PFS6 rate in patients with recurrent or progressive NF2-mutated meningiomas, compared with historical controls. The criteria for promising activity were met, and FAK inhibition warrants further evaluation for this patient population.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%–12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.