Ligon, Keith L

TPS2079 Background: Patient with glioblastoma (GBM) with unmethylated MGMT promoters derive limited benefit from temozolomide (TMZ) and have dismal outcome. Prioritizing the numerous available therapies and biomarkers for late stage testing requires an efficient clinical testing platform. INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is a biomarker-based, Bayesian adaptively randomized, multi-arm phase II platform screening trial for patients with newly diagnosed GBM and unmethylated MGMT promoters. Methods: INSIGhT compares experimental arms to a common control of standard concurrent TMZ and radiation therapy (RT) followed by adjuvant TMZ. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Patients with newly diagnosed, unmethylated GBM that are IDH R132H mutation negative, and with genomic data available or who consent to whole exome sequencing through the ALLELE companion study for biomarker grouping are eligible. Two experimental arms consist of concurrent RT/TMZ followed by adjuvant neratinib (EGFR, HER2, and HER4 inhibitor) or abemaciclib CDK 4/6 inhibitor), respectively, in place of TMZ. The other experimental arm is CC-115 (TORC1/2 and DNA PK inhibitor), which replaces TMZ in both the concurrent and adjuvant phases. Biomarker groups include: EGFR + patients with EGFR amplification/mutation; PI3K + patients with PIK3CA mutation/amplification, PIK3R1 mutation, AKT3amplification, PIK3C2B > 1 copy gain, or PTEN dual loss; CDK: + patients with wild-type RB1 and CDK4 amplification, CDK6 amplification, or CDKN2A > 1 copy loss. Given the lack of pretrial biomarker data and the anticipated overlap of the groups, randomization will initially be equal. As the trial progresses, randomization probabilities will be adapted based on the Bayesian estimation of the probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). These randomization probabilities can vary among the biomarker groups so predictive biomarkers will be identified and utilized if present. Treatment arms may drop due to low probability of treatment impact on OS, and new arms may be added. Experimental arms are compared only with control and should be thought of as discrete experimental questions, with INSIGhT being open to new investigators with proposed therapeutic hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

Abstract Purpose: Glioblastoma is an aggressive and molecularly heterogeneous cancer with few effective treatment options. We hypothesized that next-generation sequencing can be used to guide treatment recommendations within a clinically acceptable time frame following surgery for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Experimental Design: We conducted a prospective genomics-informed feasibility trial in adults with recurrent and progressive glioblastoma. Following surgical resection, genome-wide tumor/normal exome sequencing and tumor RNA sequencing were performed to identify molecular targets for potential matched therapy. A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board issued treatment recommendations based on the genomic results, blood–brain barrier penetration of the indicated therapies, drug–drug interactions, and drug safety profiles. Feasibility of generating genomics-informed treatment recommendations within 35 days of surgery was assessed. Results: Of the 20 patients enrolled in the study, 16 patients had sufficient tumor tissue for analysis. Exome sequencing was completed for all patients, and RNA sequencing was completed for 14 patients. Treatment recommendations were provided within the study's feasibility time frame for 15 of 16 (94%) patients. Seven patients received treatment based on the tumor board recommendations. Two patients reached 12-month progression-free survival, both adhering to treatments based on the molecular profiling results. One patient remained on treatment and progression free 21 months after surgery, 3 times longer than the patient's previous time to progression. Analysis of matched nonenhancing tissue from 12 patients revealed overlapping as well as novel putatively actionable genomic alterations. Conclusions: Use of genome-wide molecular profiling is feasible and can be informative for guiding real-time, central nervous system–penetrant, genomics-informed treatment recommendations for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res; 24(2); 295–305. ©2017 AACR. See related commentary by Wick and Kessler, p. 256

AbstractIntracranial myxoid mesenchymal tumor harboring EWSR1 fusions with CREB family of genes was recently described, and it resembles the myxoid variant of angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma. We present three pediatric patients with intracranial EWSR1‐rearranged myxoid mesenchymal neoplasm and provide a molecular genetic characterization of these tumors. Clinical histories and imaging results were reviewed. Histology, immunohistochemistry, EWSR1, FUS, NR4A3 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and next‐generation sequencing (NGS) were performed. A 12‐year‐old male (case 1), 14‐year‐old female (case 2), and 18‐year‐old male (case 3), presented with headaches, emesis, and seizures, respectively. The magnetic resonance images demonstrated tumors abutting the dura (cases 1 and 3) and in the third ventricle (case 2). All tumors were vascular, with solid sheets of monomorphic oval cells in a prominent myxoid/microcystic matrix. A thin fibrous pseudocapsule was present in all lesions, but definitive lymphocytic cuffing was absent. Morphologically, they closely resembled myxoid variant of angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma. Mitoses were rare, and necrosis was absent. All tumors expressed desmin and GLUT1, and focal EMA and CD99. The proliferation index was low. FISH and NGS showed EWSR1–CREB1 fusion (cases 1 and 2), and EWSR1–CREM fusion (case 3). There were no FUS (16p11.2) or NR4A3 (9q22.33) rearrangements in case 3. Gains of 5q (including KCNIP1) and 11q (including CCND1) were present in cases 1 and 2. There were no common pathogenic genomic changes other than EWSR1 rearrangements across cases. CNS myxoid mesenchymal neoplasms with histological and immunophenotypic similarities to myxoid variant of AFH are rare, diagnostically challenging, and harbor EWSR1–CREB1 and also a novel EWSR1–CREM fusion not yet described in AFH. Therefore, it is uncertain if these tumors represent variants of AFH or a new entity. The copy number and mutational changes presented here provide support for future studies to further clarify this issue.