Strowd, Roy E.

2058 Background: Immunotherapies targeting the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) pathway in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) have failed. We hypothesize that combining therapies targeting multiple immunosuppressive pathways with cytotoxic and antiangiogenic therapies will improve survival. Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody (retifanlimab), hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), and bevacizumab, with or without an oral IDO1 inhibitor (epacadostat), in patients with rGBM in a nonrandomized, noncomparative sequential two-arm Phase II study. Methods: This is an open-label Phase II study of 2 sequential cohorts (Table). Cohort A first examines retifanlimab + bevacizumab + HFRT in patients with IDH1/2-WT rGBM. After a toxicity monitoring period, Cohort B, which adds epacadostat, starts enrolling. Key inclusion criteria includes dexamethasone ≤ 4 mg/day at registration and candidacy for reirradiation. Previous bevacizumab use for radiation necrosis is permitted. The primary endpoint is OS probability at 9 months (OS-9). Secondary endpoints include PFS, OS, and toxicity. Exploratory endpoints include immunological phenotyping of blood and tissue. An increase of OS-9 from 38% (bevacizumab alone) to 60% is considered clinically relevant. Results: From 6/2020 to 12/2021, we have completed accrual for cohort A and the interim analysis results are presented here: 25 patients with rGBM enrolled, with 23 evaluable. Median age is 64.3 years (42.1-81.8), 30.4% female, 30.4% MGMT promotor methylated, median KPS 90 (range 70-100), baseline dexamethasone 0 mg (range 0-4) with 52.2% of patients on dexamethasone during the first 3 cycles, median baseline ALC 1,000 cells/µl (range 300-3,700). Patients received a median of 6 cycles to date (range 2-20). Median follow-up is 11.97 months per the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Interim analysis shows a median PFS of 9.9 months (95%CI: 5.5 to not reached (NR)) and median OS of 12.2 months (95%CI 7.3-NR). Notably, Cohort A met the primary endpoint with an OS-9 of 71.4% (95%CI: 46.7% -86.1%). No dose limiting toxicities have been yet observed. Two treatment-related grade 3 toxicities have occurred (myositis, hypertension). Cohort B enrollment is ongoing, and correlative studies pending. Conclusions: Interim analysis suggests retifanlimab combined with HFRT and bevacizumab in patients with rGBM is well-tolerated and had encouraging OS and PFS at the time of data cutoff. Cohort B, which adds epacadostat, is currently enrolling. Clinical trial information: NCT03532295. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Treatment options for unresectable new and recurrent glioblastoma remain limited. Laser ablation has demonstrated safety as a surgical approach to treating primary brain tumors. The LAANTERN prospective multicenter registry (NCT02392078) data were analyzed to determine clinical outcomes for patients with new and recurrent IDH wild-type glioblastoma. Methods Demographics, intraprocedural data, adverse events, KPS, health economics, and survival data were prospectively collected and then analyzed on IDH wild-type newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma patients who were treated with laser ablation at 14 US centers between January 2016 and May 2019. Data were monitored for accuracy. Statistical analysis included individual variable summaries, multivariable differences in survival, and median survival numbers. Results A total of 29 new and 60 recurrent IDH wild-type WHO grade 4 glioblastoma patients were treated. Positive MGMT promoter methylation status was present in 5/29 of new and 23/60 of recurrent patients. Median physician-estimated extent of ablation was 91%-99%. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.73 months (95% confidence interval: 5.16, 15.91) for newly diagnosed patients and median post-procedure survival was 8.97 months (6.94, 12.36) for recurrent patients. Median OS for newly diagnosed patients receiving post-LITT chemo/radiation was 16.14 months (6.11, not reached). Factors associated with improved survival were MGMT promoter methylation, adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 weeks, and tumor volume <3 cc. Conclusions Laser ablation is a viable option for patients with new and recurrent glioblastoma. Median OS for IDH wild-type newly diagnosed glioblastoma is comparable to outcomes observed in other tumor resection studies when those patients undergo radiation and chemotherapy following LITT.

AbstractWhile the COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the expansion of telemedicine into nearly every specialty of medicine, few articles have summarized current practices and recommendations for integrating virtual care in the practice of neuro-oncology. This article identifies current telemedicine practice, provides practical guidance for conducting telemedicine visits, and generates recommendations for integrating virtual care into neuro-oncology practice. Practical aspects of telemedicine are summarized including when to use and not use telemedicine, how to conduct a virtual visit, who to include in the virtual encounter, unique aspects of telehealth in neuro-oncology, and emerging innovations.

Abstract New approaches are needed to overcome intrinsic therapy resistance in glioblastoma (GBM). Because GBMs exhibit sexual dimorphism and are reported to express steroid hormone receptors, we reasoned that signaling through the androgen receptor (AR) could mediate therapy resistance in GBM, as it does in AR-positive prostate and breast cancers. Using RNAseq, immunoblot and immunohistochemistry, we found that nearly half of GBM cell lines, patient-derived xenografts and human tumors express AR transcript and protein with levels that overlap those of primary prostate cancer. AR expression in GBM did not vary by sex, age or common molecular alterations. We identified two cell line models of GBM that expressed AR protein (LN18 and T98G: termed “AR positive”) and two that did not (8MGBA and AM38: termed “AR negative”). Seviteronel, a blood-brain barrier permeable CYP17 lyase inhibitor and antiandrogen slowed growth in AR positive GBM cell lines (GI50 3-4 µM) but not AR negative lines (GI50 > 500 µM) as measured by the colony formation assay. The antiandrogen enzalutamide, which also penetrates the blood brain barrier, similarly preferentially slowed growth in AR positive GBM cell lines. Seviteronel and enzalutamide sensitized AR positive GBM cell lines to radiation with enhancement ratios of 1.3-1.6 as measured by the clonogenic survival assay. Antiandrogens had no effect on the radiosensitivity of AR negative GBM cell lines. Seviteronel treatment did not affect the growth of AR positive T98G xenografts grown in vivo, but did sensitize these tumors to radiation (median time to tripling: 15 d with radiation alone and not reached with radiation combined with seviteronel). Enzalutamide similarly had modest single agent effects on an AR positive GBM patient-derived xenograft (GBM26 from the Mayo Clinic GBM PDX national resource) grown in vivo but sensitized these tumors to radiation (median time to tripling: 25.5 d with radiation alone and 39 d with radiation combined with enzalutamide). RNAseq performed on GBM26 tumors grown in vivo revealed that enzalutamide treatment caused minimal transcriptional changes when given as monotherapy but, when given in combination with radiation, blocked the ability of AR-positive GBMs to engage adaptive transcriptional programs related to multiple DNA repair pathways. We confirmed these mechanistic findings in vitro, as antiandrogens selectively impaired the repair of radiation-induced double strand DNA breaks in AR positive GBM cell lines. These results suggest that AR signaling may mediate therapy resistance in AR positive GBMs, and patients with these tumors could derive clinical benefit from combination therapies involving radiation and blood-brain-barrier permeable antiandrogens. Citation Format: Christian K. Werner, Uchechi Nna, Hanshi Sun, Kari Wilder-Romans, Joseph Dresser, Ayesha Kothari, Weihua Zhou, Yangyang Yao, Arvind Rao, Stefanie Stallard, Carl Koschmann, Tarik Bor, Waldemar Debinski, Alexander Hegedus, Meredith Morgan, Sriram Venneti, Edwina Baskin-Bey, Daniel Spratt, Howard Colman, Jann Sarkaria, Arul Chinnayain, Joel Eisner, Corey Speers, Theodore S. Lawrence, Roy Strowd, Daniel R. Wahl. Repurposing antiandrogens to overcome therapy resistance in androgen receptor-positive glioblastoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 6267.

Abstract New approaches are needed to overcome intrinsic therapy resistance in glioblastoma (GBM). Because GBMs exhibit sexual dimorphism and are reported to express steroid hormone receptors, we reasoned that signaling through the androgen receptor (AR) could mediate therapy resistance in GBM, much as it does in AR-positive prostate and breast cancers. We found that nearly half of GBM cell lines, patient-derived xenografts (PDX), and human tumors expressed AR at the transcript and protein level—with expression levels overlapping those of primary prostate cancer. Analysis of gene expression datasets also revealed that AR expression is higher in GBM patient samples than normal brain tissue. Multiple clinical-grade antiandrogens slowed the growth of and radiosensitized AR-positive GBM cell lines and PDXs in vitro and in vivo. Antiandrogens blocked the ability of AR-positive GBM PDXs to engage adaptive transcriptional programs following radiation and slowed the repair of radiation-induced DNA damage. These results suggest that combining blood–brain barrier permeable antiandrogens with radiation may have promise for patients with AR-positive GBMs.

AbstractBuilding on an initiative to enhance clinical trial participation involving the Society for Neuro-Oncology, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners, we evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria and trial conduct on neuro-oncology clinical trial participation. Clinical trials often carry forward eligibility criteria from prior studies that may be overly restrictive and unnecessary and needlessly limit patient accrual. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be evaluated based on the goals and design of the study and whether they impact patient safety and/or treatment efficacy. In addition, we evaluate clinical trial conduct as a barrier to accrual and discuss strategies to minimize such barriers for neuro-oncology trials.