Chang, Susan M.

Abstract The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve the reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, we propose updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, 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 post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment.

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.

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 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.

Abstract Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as “recruiting” or “not yet recruiting” as of February 2021.

Abstract Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for many hard-to-treat cancers but has yet to produce significant improvement in outcomes for patients with glioblastoma. This reflects the multiple and unique mechanisms of immune evasion and escape in this highly heterogeneous tumor. Glioblastoma engenders profound local and systemic immunosuppression and is remarkably effective at inducing T-cell dysfunction, posing a challenge to any immunotherapy-based approach. To overcome these mechanisms, multiple disparate modes of immune-oriented therapy will be required. However, designing trials that can evaluate these combinatorial approaches requires careful consideration. In this review, we explore the immunotherapy resistance mechanisms that have been encountered to date and how combinatorial approaches may address these. We also describe the unique aspects of trial design in both preclinical and clinical settings and consider endpoints and markers of response best suited for an intervention involving multiple agents.

AbstractBackgroundMolecular testing (MT) is utilized in neuro-oncology with increasing frequency. The aim of this study was to determine clinical practice patterns to acquire this information, interpret and utilize MT for patient care, and identify unmet needs in the practical clinical application of MT.MethodsWe conducted a voluntary online survey of providers within the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) membership database between March and April 2019.ResultsWe received 152 responses out of 2022 SNO members (7.5% of membership). 88.8% of respondents routinely order MT for newly diagnosed gliomas. Of those who do not, testing is preferentially performed in younger patients or those with midline tumors. 82.8% use MT in recurrent gliomas. Other common indications included: metastatic tumors, meningioma, and medulloblastoma. Many providers utilize more than one resource (36.0%), most frequently using in-house (41.8%) over commercially available panels. 78.1% used the results for clinical decision-making, with BRAF, EGFR, ALK, and H3K27 mutations most commonly directing treatment decisions. Approximately, half (48.5%) of respondents have molecular tumor boards at their institutions. Respondents would like to see SNO-endorsed guidelines on MT, organized lists of targeted agents available for specific mutations, a database of targetable mutations and clinical trials, and more educational programs on MT.ConclusionThis survey was marked by several limitations including response rate and interpretation of MT. Among respondents, there is routine use of MT in Neuro-Oncology, however, there remains a need for increased guidance for providers to effectively incorporate the expanding genomic data resulting from MT into daily Neuro-Oncology practice.

Abstract Background The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Methods A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. Results A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). Conclusion Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

Abstract BACKGROUND The prognostic importance of maximal resection of contrast enhancing and non-contrast enhancing disease has been established. Nonetheless, glioblastomas exist within the framework of complex neural circuitry serving cognition, movement, and behavior consequential leading to neurological impairments. The prognostic importance of neurological impairments on survival remains poorly understood. METHODS This is a retrospective, single cohort study from UCSF including 316 eligible patients diagnosed over 20 years with 9.6 years of follow-up. All patients underwent surgical resection for newly diagnosed glioblastoma for whom survival, molecular, preoperative and postoperative MRI images, and clinical data were available. All patients had chemoradiation treated IDH-wild-type glioblastoma with available preoperative and 1-month post-surgical resection neurological outcomes. We employed survival models and recursive partitioning (RPA) to investigate multivariate relationships of overall survival (OS). RESULTS Preoperative neurological impairments were present in 75.6% (n= 239) and new post resection impairments were identified in 37.3% (n=117). Univariate analysis confirmed that new postoperative cognitive impairment [HR 7.91, 95% CI 2.47-25.33] and hemiplegia [HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.83-13.67] (not hemiparesis) impact OS. Risk stratified grouping by RPA demonstrated that gross total resection of contrast enhancing tumor in patients with no new postoperative neurological impairments confers the longest OS (median OS 27.1 months 95%CI 21.5-33.7). Patients with any residual tumor volume after surgery but no new neurological deficits experience a similar survival to younger patients (under 65) with 1 or more new postoperative neurological deficits (median OS 16.6 months 95%CI 15.2-19.2). Shortest OS is identified in patients with any volume of residual tumor plus 1 or more new postoperative neurological deficits and age over 65 (median OS 11.4 months, 95%CI 9.3-13.5). CONCLUSIONS This study confirms that new postoperative neurological impairments impact overall survival in patients with chemoradiation treated IDH-wild-type glioblastoma.

Abstract Glioblastoma is a devastating disease with poor prognosis. Few effective chemotherapeutics are currently available, and much effort has been expended to identify new drugs capable of slowing tumor progression. The phase 0 trial design was developed to facilitate early identification of promising agents for cancer that should undergo accelerated approval. This design features an early in-human study that enrolls a small number of patients who receive subtherapeutic doses of medication with the goals of describing pharmacokinetics through drug blood level measurements and determining intratumoral concentrations of the investigational compound as well as pharmacodynamics by studying the biochemical and physiological effects of drugs. In neuro-oncology, however, the presence of the blood–brain barrier and difficulty in obtaining brain tumor tissue warrant a separate set of considerations. In this paper, we critically reviewed the protocols used in all brain tumor related in-human phase 0 and phase 0–like (“window of opportunity”) studies between 1993 and 2018, as well as ongoing clinical trials, and identified major challenges in trial design as applied to central nervous system tumors that include surgical specimen collection and storage, brain tumor drug level analysis, and confirmation of drug action. We therefore propose that phase 0 trials in neuro-oncology should include (i) only patients in whom a resection of the tumor is planned, (ii) use of clinical doses of an investigational agent, (iii) tissue sampling from enhancing and non-enhancing portions of the tumor, and (iv) assessment of drug-specific target effects. Standardization of clinical protocols for phase 0/window of opportunity studies can help accelerate the development of effective treatments for glioblastoma.