Rahman, Rifaquat

TPS2103 Background: Treatment for newly diagnosed IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 3, is based on the results of the CATNON study, demonstrating benefit of radiotherapy followed by 12 months of adjuvant temozolomide. While temozolomide and radiotherapy significantly improved survival, the prognosis for these patients remains limited and more effective therapies are required. This trial will evaluate the benefit of the addition of the IDH1 and IDH-2 inhibitor vorasidenib to adjuvant temozolomide versus placebo following standard radiotherapy to evaluate possible improvement in outcomes. Methods: Alliance A072301 (NCT07215910) is a multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 randomized study to determine if the addition of vorasidenib to adjuvant temozolomide significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS), based on blinded central review in patients with newly diagnosed, IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 3. Key inclusion criteria include age ≥ 12 years old, histological confirmation of astrocytoma (absence of 1p/19q codeletion), WHO grade 3, presence of any IDH mutation, plan for radiation and chemotherapy and surgery within 6 months. The presence of CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, spinal or leptomeningeal disease, as well as prior chemotherapy, cranial irradiation or IDH inhibitor therapy, is exclusionary. 408 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive vorasidenib 40 mg or placebo daily with 12 cycles of temozolomide following radiotherapy and then continued as monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors include age (< 40 years old vs ≥ 40 years old) and residual disease (< 2 cm vs ≥ 2 cm). Tumor assessments with MRI will be every three months for the first two years, every four months for the next two years and then every six months thereafter as per blinded independent central review using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) 2.0 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include PFS by local review, time to next treatment, safety and tolerability, quality of life measures. Exploratory measures will include seizure frequency. The trial will have 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.625 with one-sided type I error rate of 0.025. Enrollment for the trial commenced February 2026. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

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.

Importance Brain metastases are common in patients with cancer, and radiation is often used for management. Among patients with more than 4 brain metastases, the effects of stereotactic radiation targeting only individual tumors, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance, which radiates both tumors and normal brain, remain unknown. Objective To determine whether stereotactic radiation improves symptom severity and interference with daily functioning, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 United States–based centers. Eligible patients had 5 to 20 brain metastases and no prior brain-directed radiation. Enrollment occurred between April 11, 2017, and May 17, 2024 (final follow-up, March 18, 2025). Intervention Stereotactic radiation, compared with whole brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean weighted patient-reported symptom severity and interference score change over 6 months postbaseline relative to baseline using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor instrument (scale, 0-10; score change range, −10 to 10; −10 = best). A clinically meaningful Δ was defined as 0.98. Results Of 196 randomized patients (mean age, 61 years; 129 [66%] female; 176 [90%] White; median number of brain metastases, 14 [IQR, 11-18]; 49 [25%] with prior neurosurgical resection), 83 (42%) completed the 6-month assessment. For the primary outcome, between baseline and postbaseline assessments through the 6-month follow-up, stereotactic radiation changed the weighted composite MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor score from 2.69 to 2.37 (mean change, −0.32) and hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation changed the score from 2.29 to 3.03 (mean change, 0.74) (mean difference, −1.06 [95% CI, −1.54 to −0.58]; P &amp;lt; .001). Related grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 12 patients (12%) in the stereotactic radiation group and 13 patients (13%) in the hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation group; grade 1-3 fatigue was most frequent (27 [28%] vs 43 [44%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with 5 to 20 brain metastases, these findings support stereotactic radiation over hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation to improve symptoms and interference with daily functioning, key components of quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03075072

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.

PURPOSE Stereotactic radiation (SRS/SRT) as opposed to whole-brain radiation (WBRT) represents the standard of care for patients with a limited number of brain metastases given the relatively favorable toxicity profile associated with stereotactic treatment. However, in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), WBRT remains standard because of a lack of prospective data supporting SRS/SRT and concerns related to intracranial progression and neurologic death when WBRT is omitted. We conducted a single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial of SRS/SRT in patients with SCLC and 1-10 brain metastases to assess neurologic death rates relative to historical controls managed with WBRT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03391362 ). METHODS Patients were eligible if they had SCLC or an extrathoracic small cell primary and 1-10 brain metastases. Previous brain-directed radiation including prophylactic cranial irradiation was not permitted. Neurologic death was defined as marked, progressive, radiographic brain progression accompanied by corresponding neurologic symptomatology without systemic disease progression or systemic symptoms of a life-threatening nature. Close imaging-based surveillance of the brain post-SRS/SRT was used. RESULTS Between February 2018 and April 2023, 100 patients were enrolled. The median number of brain metastases was 2 (IQR, 1-4; range, 1-10). The median overall survival was 10.2 months; only 22% of patients required salvage WBRT. In total, 20 neurologic deaths were observed, relative to 64 non-neurologic deaths. The neurologic death rate at 1 year was 11.0% (95% CI, 5.8 to 18.1); the historical rate in patients managed with WBRT was 17.5%. CONCLUSION Our prospective, multi-institutional study demonstrated low rates of neurologic death when SRS/SRT as opposed to WBRT is used in patients with SCLC and 1-10 brain metastases who are surveilled closely post-treatment, supporting the utility of stereotactic approaches in this population.

2011 Background: Radiation therapy forms the mainstay of management for patients with brain metastases. Published randomized trials have found improved quality of life with stereotactic radiation (SRS/SRT) over whole brain radiation (WBRT) in patients with ≤ 4 brain metastases; comparative trials in patients with >4 brain metastases are lacking. In addition, prior randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of hippocampal avoidance WBRT (HA-WBRT) over traditional WBRT, but no study has compared SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT. Accordingly, we conducted a multicenter, phase 3 randomized trial comparing SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT in patients with 5-20 brain metastases. Methods: Eligible patients were age 18-80 with 5-20 brain metastases secondary to a solid primary other than small cell lung cancer, were naïve to prior brain-directed radiation, and lacked leptomeningeal disease. The primary endpoint was the average of patient-reported symptom severity and interference over the first six months post-baseline relative to baseline, using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT) module, a validated instrument assessing 22 symptoms and 6 interference measures integral to quality of life, each scored 0-10 with higher scores indicating greater symptomatology/interference in function. The target effect size was a symptom severity of 0.70, corresponding to 50% of the observed difference between patients with a good (90-100) versus poor (≤80) Karnofsky performance status; with 80% power and a two-sided alpha of 0.05, 196 patients were required. Results: Between 4/2017-5/2024, 196 patients enrolled, 98 in each arm. The median number of brain metastases was 14 (IQR 11-18); 25% of patients underwent prior neurosurgical resection. Baseline mean MDASI-BT symptom severity scores were 2.2 (SRS/SRT arm) and 1.9 (HA-WBRT arm), p=0.20; respective interference scores were 3.5 and 3.2 (p=0.40). The average of weighted post-baseline severity and interference scores relative to baseline indicated lower symptomatology/inference in the SRS/SRT arm, meeting the primary endpoint of the study (difference between SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT: -1.06, p<0.001). Averaged post-baseline symptom severity scores minus baseline were -0.03 and 0.59 in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (difference -0.62, with lower symptom severity in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001); respective interference estimates were -0.62 and 0.89 (difference -1.50, with lower interference in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001). Median survival was 8.3 and 8.5 months in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (p=0.30). Conclusions: This phase 3 randomized trial indicates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases experience fewer symptoms and less interference in function after SRS/SRT as opposed to HA-WBRT, without compromise of survival, supporting SRS/SRT as the standard of care in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03075072 .

PURPOSE Survival for patients with melanoma has recently improved. The propensity of melanoma to metastasize to the brain remains a common and serious feature of this disease. The purposes of this study were to evaluate prognostic factors for patients with newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) in a large cohort treated with modern multimodal therapies, compare those results with those in prior eras, and update the Melanoma Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). METHODS Univariable and multivariable (MVA) analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival were performed on 1,796 patients with newly diagnosed MBM treated between January 01, 2015, and December 31, 2021, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness of potential predictors. Significant variables in combined MVA were used to update the Melanoma GPA. Comparisons were made with legacy cohorts. RESULTS Median survivals for cohorts A (1985-2007, n = 481), B (2006-2015, n = 823), and C (2015-2021, n = 1,796) were 6.7, 9.8, and 16.6 months and median follow-up times were 40.1, 43.6, and 48.8 months, respectively. In combined MVA, significant prognostic factors for survival were higher Karnofsky Performance Status, fewer MBMs, absence of extracranial metastases, lower serum lactate dehydrogenase, and no immunotherapy before MBM. These factors were incorporated into the updated Melanoma GPA. The combined median and 3-year survivals for patients with GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, and 2.5-4.0 were 5.4, 13.2, and 43.2 months and 12.4%, 28.8%, and 51.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION Prognostic factors have changed and survival has improved for patients with MBM but varies widely by GPA. The updated Melanoma GPA calculator (BrainMetGPA), available free online, can be used to estimate survival, individualize treatment, stratify clinical trials, guide surveillance, and augment clinical trial eligibility. Multidisciplinary treatment is essential. Trials are needed to elucidate the optimal sequencing of various therapeutic modalities.

Abstract DNA damage response (DDR) mechanisms are critical to maintenance of overall genomic stability, and their dysfunction can contribute to oncogenesis. Significant advances in our understanding of DDR pathways have raised the possibility of developing therapies that exploit these processes. In this expert-driven consensus review, we examine mechanisms of response to DNA damage, progress in development of DDR inhibitors in IDH-wild-type glioblastoma and IDH-mutant gliomas, and other important considerations such as biomarker development, preclinical models, combination therapies, mechanisms of resistance and clinical trial design considerations.

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.

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.