Jaeckle, Kurt A.

AbstractThe combination of pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (DEX) was evaluated for relapsed/refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) and primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of POM as the primary objective, and overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety profile as secondary objectives. A cohorts-of-3 study design was used with a dose-escalation schedule consisting of POM (3, 5, 7, or 10 mg) orally daily for 21 days every 28 days and DEX 40 mg orally every week. After 2 cycles, POM was continued alone until disease progression, intolerance, or subject withdrawal. Following MTD determination, the MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-five of 29 patients with the median of 3 prior treatments were eligible for assessment as per international PCNSL collaborative group criteria. The MTD of POM was 5 mg daily for 21 days every 28 days. Whole-study ORR was 48% (12 of 25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.8%, 68.7%) with 6 complete response (CR), 2 complete response, unconfirmed (CRu), and 4 partial response (PR). MTD cohort ORR was 50% (8 of 16; 95% CI, 24.7%, 75.4%) with 5 CR, 1 CRu, and 2 PR. Median PFS was 5.3 months (whole study) and 9 months (for responders). One patient had pseudoprogression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (21%), anemia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included lung infection (12%), sepsis (4%), fatigue (8%), syncope (4%), dyspnea (4%), hypoxia (4%), respiratory failure (8%), and rash (4%). POM/DEX treatment is feasible with significant therapeutic activity against relapsed/refractory PCNSL and PVRL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01722305.

2023 Background: TRC105 is a humanized antibody targeting CD105 (endoglin), a member of the TGFβ receptor superfamily. CD105 is expressed in glioma stem cells and circulating endothelial cells (CECs) in GBM patients (pts), increasing following VEGF inhibition. N1174 was conducted in recurrent bevacizumab (bev) naïve GBM pts to investigate the hypothesis that CD105 blockade+bev can delay development of bev resistance. Methods: After a ph I cohort (15 pts) established the ph II dose of TRC105 as 10 mg/kg IV over 4 hours every 7 days in combination with standard dose bev, the ph II trial used 1:1 randomization with 90% power and 0.10 type I error to detect a 3 month (mo) difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between the two arms. CECs including CD105 positive subsets were measured by flow cytometry at baseline and multiple time points. Results: Based on 101 evaluable ph II pts, there was no significant difference in PFS between TRC105+bev and bev only (2.9 vs 3.2 mo, respectively; HR=1.14, 95% CI 0.73-1.77, p=0.57), or overall survival (10.0 vs 7.4 mo; HR 1.02 95% CI 0.63-1.65, p=0.93). Response rate (complete or partial) was 12.2% (6/49) for TRC105+bev and 11.6% (5/43) for bev only. Overall incidence of grade (gr) 3+ toxicity was higher for TRC105+bev (67.3% vs 32.7%, p<0.001) mainly due to 14 pts with gr 3 anemia in the TRC105+bev arm vs 0 in the bev only pts. Gr 3+ non-heme toxicities were higher in pts receiving TRC105+bev vs bev only (50% vs 30.6%, p=0.07), mainly due to headache (6 vs 1 pts) and hyperglycemia (3 vs 0 pts). CECs remained stable in combination treated pts, suggesting a possible impact of the anti-CD105 blockade, but increased at progression in the bev only arm. There was no association between PFS and initial changes in CEC values, independent of treatment received. Conclusions: TRC105 plus bev did not prolong median PFS vs single agent bev in recurrent GBM pts, although it was associated with a non-significant prolongation of OS. These data and associated correlative analysis of CECs from study pts point against endoglin being a clinically significant factor for the development of bev resistance. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882. Clinical trial information: NCT01648348.

BACKGROUNDMitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)‐dependent signaling are hallmarks of glioblastoma. In the current study, the authors conducted a phase 1/2 study of sorafenib (an inhibitor of Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 [VEGFR‐2]) and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.METHODSPatients with recurrent glioblastoma who developed disease progression after surgery or radiotherapy plus temozolomide and with ≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. The phase 1 endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), using a cohorts‐of‐3 design. The 2‐stage phase 2 study included separate arms for VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi)–naive patients and patients who progressed after prior VEGFi.RESULTSThe MTD was sorafenib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus at a dose of 20 mg weekly. In the first 41 evaluable patients who were treated at the phase 2 dose, there were 7 who were free of disease progression at 6 months (progression‐free survival at 6 months [PFS6]) in the VEGFi‐naive group (17.1%); this finding met the prestudy threshold of success. In the prior VEGFi group, only 4 of the first 41 evaluable patients treated at the phase 2 dose achieved PFS6 (9.8%), and this did not meet the prestudy threshold for success. The median PFS for the 2 groups was 2.6 months and 1.9 months, respectively. The median overall survival for the 2 groups was 6.3 months and 3.9 months, respectively. At least 1 adverse event of grade ≥3 was observed in 75.5% of the VEGFi‐naive patients and in 73.9% of the prior VEGFi patients.CONCLUSIONSThe limited activity of sorafenib and temsirolimus at the dose and schedule used in the current study was observed with considerable toxicity of grade ≥3. Significant dose reductions that were required in this treatment combination compared with tolerated single‐agent doses may have contributed to the lack of efficacy. Cancer 2018;124:1455‐63. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

LBA2010 Background: RTOG 0825 evaluated the addition of BEV to standard CRT in the treatment of GBM and included molecular stratification that assessed the degree of mesenchymal (MES) gene enrichment. We investigated the ability of the MES signature to predict response to BEV. Methods: Sufficient FFPE tissue for molecular analysis was available for 650 registered, eligible patients. TaqMan PCR was performed prospectively using the molecular stratifier on all patients and an expanded 43 member MES set on 234 cases. A subset of specimens was subjected to whole genome expression profiling (GEP). Predictive models were evaluated for their ability to predict survival (overall, OS, and progression-free, PFS) in the training cohort of the BEV arm after adjusting for prognostic factors and treatment arm. Unsupervised clustering of GEP data was used to identify molecular subsets and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) performed to evaluate for MES enrichment. Results: We observed a significant association between increasing MES signature and worse PFS and OS in the BEV arm (p=0.036 and p=0.032, respectively). Based on the association between high MES expression and poor outcome in the BEV arm, we sought to optimize a predictor using an expanded set of MES genes. Unbiased gene selection from a total of 43 genes followed by radial basis machine modeling identified a 10-gene predictor of outcome in the BEV arm (p<0.001/HR 4.04 for OS and p<0.001/HR 2.21 for PFS). To further support the association of MES enrichment and poor outcome in the BEV arm, we performed GEP. Unsupervised clustering identified a subtype of tumors with MES enrichment associated with the 10-gene predictor survival probability (p=0.0124, t-test). Ongoing studies will determine the extent to which this represents a predictive marker for BEV. Conclusions: We developed a 10-gene predictor specific to BEV treatment and suitable for FFPE that may serve to identify subsets of patients with newly diagnosed GBM who benefit from BEV. Supported by RTOG grant U10 CA21661, CCOP grant U10 CA37422, and Brain SPORE P50 CA127001 from the NCI and Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT00884741.

1 Background: Chemoradiation (CRT) with temozolomide (TMZ/RT→TMZ) is the standard of care for newly diagnosed GBM. This trial determined if the addition of Bev to standard CRT improves survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in newly diagnosed GBM. Methods: This phase III trial was conducted by the RTOG, NCCTG, and ECOG. Neurologically stable pts > 18 yrs with KPS ≥ 60, and > 1cm3 tumor tissue block, were randomized to Arm 1: standard CRT + placebo or Arm 2: standard CRT plus Bev (10 mg/kg iv q 2wks). Experimental treatment began at wk 4 of radiation then thru 6-12 cycles of maintenance chemotherapy. Protocol specified co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS, with significance levels of .023 and .002, respectively. At progression, treatment was unblinded and pts allowed to crossover or continue Bev. Symptom, QOL and neurocognitive (NCF) testing was performed in the majority of pts. Secondary analyses evaluated impact of MGMT methylation (meth) and prognostic 9 gene signature status. Results: From 978 registered pts, 637 were randomized. Inadequate tissue (n=105) and blood on imaging (n=40) were key reasons for non-randomization. No difference was found between arms for OS (median 16.1 vs. 15.7 mo, p = 0.11). PFS was extended for Arm 2 (7.3 vs. 10.7 mo, p = 0.004). Pts with MGMT meth had superior OS (23.2 vs. 14.3 mo, p < 0.001) and PFS (14.1 vs. 8.2 mo, p < 0.001). Neither the 9 gene signature nor MGMT predicted selective benefit for Bev treatment, but best prognosis pts (MGMT meth, favorable 9-gene), had a worse survival trend with Bev (15.7 vs 25 mo p = 0.08). To date, 128 pts were unblinded on Arm 1 (salvage Bev in 86) and 87 pts on Arm 2 (continued Bev in 39). Increased grade ≥ 3 toxicity was seen with Bev, mostly neutropenia, hypertension, and DVT/PE. Conclusions: The addition of Bev for newly diagnosed GBM did not improve OS, did improve PFS but did not reach the significance criterion. MGMT and 9 gene profile did not identify selective benefit, but risk subset results suggested strongly against the upfront use of Bev in the best prognosis pts. Full interpretation of the PFS results incorporating symptom burden, QOL, and NCF is ongoing. Support: NCI U10 CA 21661, U10 CA37422, and Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT00884741.

LBA4 Background: WBRT significantly improves tumor control in the brain after SRS, yet the role of adjuvant WBRT remains undefined due to concerns regarding neurocognitive risks. Methods: Patients with 1-3 brain metastases, each < 3 cm by contrast MRI, were randomized to SRS alone or SRS + WBRT and underwent cognitive testing before and after treatment. The primary endpoint was cognitive progression (CP) defined as decline > 1 SD from baseline in any of the 6 cognitive tests at 3 months. Time to CP was estimated using cumulative incidence adjusting for survival as a competing risk. Results: 213 patients were enrolled with 2 ineligible and 3 cancels prior to receiving treatment. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between study arms. The median age was 60 and lung primary the most common (68%). CP at 3 months was more frequent after WBRT + SRS vs. SRS alone (88.0% vs. 61.9% respectively, p = 0.002). There was more deterioration in the WBRT + SRS arm in immediate recall (31% vs. 8%, p = 0.007), delayed recall (51% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and verbal fluency (19% vs. 2%, p = 0.02). Intracranial tumor control at 6 and 12 months were 66.1% and 50.5% with SRS alone vs. 88.3% and 84.9% with SRS+WBRT (p < 0.001). Median OS was 10.7 for SRS alone vs. 7.5 months for SRS+WBRT respectively (HR = 1.02, p = 0.93). Conclusions: Decline in cognitive function, specifically immediate recall, memory and verbal fluency, was more frequent with the addition of WBRT to SRS. Adjuvant WBRT did not improve OS despite better brain control. Initial treatment with SRS and close monitoring is recommended to better preserve cognitive function in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases that are amenable to SRS. Clinical trial information: NCT00377156.