Vogelbaum, Michael A.

Abstract Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.

2024 Background: A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. Methods: We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. Results: We describe selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. Conclusions: We will implement strategies with the intent to double trial accrual over the next 5 years. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS Two CNS guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, and an independent multidisciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The Expert Panel voted to endorse the two guidelines, and ASCO and Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines with minor alterations. RECOMMENDATIONS Key recommendations include the following: prophylactic antiepileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; and corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Abstract The finding that most grades II and III gliomas harbor isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations conveying a relatively favorable and fairly similar prognosis in both tumor grades highlights that these tumors represent a fundamentally different entity from IDH wild-type gliomas exemplified in most glioblastoma. Herein we review the most recent developments in molecular neuropathology leading to reclassification of these tumors based upon IDH and 1p/19q status, as well as the potential roles of methylation profiling and deletional analysis of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A and 2B. We discuss the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, benefit of surgical resection, and neuroimaging features of lower-grade gliomas as they relate to molecular subtype, including advanced imaging techniques such as 2-hydroxyglutarate magnetic resonance spectroscopy and amino acid PET scanning. Recent, ongoing, and planned studies of radiation therapy and both cytotoxic and targeted chemotherapies are summarized, including both small molecule and immunotherapy approaches specifically targeting the mutant IDH protein.

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.