Citations

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.

PURPOSE GBM AGILE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03970447 ) is a phase II/III Bayesian adaptive platform registration trial testing multiple arms against a common control; the primary end point is overall survival (OS). Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, showed OS benefit in recurrent (RD) glioblastoma in the phase II REGOMA trial and entered GBM AGILE as the first investigational arm. METHODS Patient subtypes included in the regorafenib arm of GBM AGILE were newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and RD glioblastoma. Prospective defined sets of subtypes, or arm signatures, were NDU, RD, and all (NDU + RD). As the first investigational arm in GBM AGILE, regorafenib was equally randomized to the control arm. Treatment in the control arm is temozolomide + radiotherapy (in newly diagnosed) or lomustine (in RD). Efficacy was assessed by OS hazard ratio (HR), arm/control, and demonstrated when the Bayesian probability of benefit (HR <1.00) was ≥98%. Analysis was performed monthly for limited efficacy, which occurs when the Bayesian predictive power is <25% for all signatures, and determines stopping enrollment. Follow-up continued for 12 months after accrual stopped. RESULTS When the predictive power was <25% in all predefined signatures for regorafenib, accrual stopped for limited efficacy. The final analysis did not demonstrate OS improvement in the regorafenib arm in RD nor NDU glioblastoma. Median HRs were 1.05 (NDU), 1.07 (RD), and 1.07 (all) with final probabilities of benefit (HR <1.00) of 0.421 (NDU), 0.312 (RD), and 0.296 (all). Regorafenib was associated with increased toxicity relative to control. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE did not show superiority of regorafenib over control in RD (lomustine) or NDU (temozolomide + radiotherapy) glioblastoma, yet caused increased toxicities. Regorafenib has been removed from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for RD.

PURPOSE STELLAR (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02796261 ) was a phase III, randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy in patients with recurrent grade 3 astrocytoma. METHODS At trial initiation, eligibility criteria included: age ≥18 years, anaplastic astrocytoma (2016 WHO CNS Tumor classification [WHO CNS4]), first recurrence ≥6 months after radiation and temozolomide (TMZ), Karnofsky performance status ≥70, and no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) mutation, age, resection extent, and geography. Patients received eflornithine (2.8 g/m 2 orally, every 8 hours [2 weeks on, 1 week off]) + lomustine (90 mg/m 2 orally, once every 6 weeks), or lomustine monotherapy (110 mg/m 2 once every 6 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Among 343 patients randomly assigned across 74 sites in eight countries, there was no difference in survival between eflornithine + lomustine and lomustine monotherapy (median OS 23.4 v 20.3 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.94). Following changes in classification and grading in the 2021 WHO CNS5, a subset analysis of patients with IDH- mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma (n = 196), defined in 2024, before unblinding, showed clinically meaningful improvements in median OS with eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy (34.9 v 23.5 months, HR, 0.64) and median progression-free survival (PFS, 15.8 v 7.2 months, HR, 0.57). No differences were observed among patients with CNS grade 4 disease. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events of relevance were related to reversible myelosuppression (eflornithine + lomustine 42% v lomustine monotherapy 29% of patients) and hearing impairment (24% v 0%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION Clinically meaningful improvements were observed; eflornithine + lomustine doubled PFS and improved OS in patients with recurrent IDH -mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma, but not grade 4 tumors, after prior radiotherapy and TMZ, consistent with its cytostatic mechanism of action.

Abstract IDH-wildtype diffuse astrocytic gliomas with lower-grade histological features alongside specific genomic alterations (e.g., TERT promoter mutation, EGFR amplification, gain Chr7/loss Chr10) are presently diagnosed as glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype (GBM) under WHO 2021 criteria. Previous analyses categorized these into “early/evolving” or “surgically undersampled” GBMs. However, it remains unclear whether these tumors share identical clinical and prognostic features with histologic GBM. Data from IDH-wt molecular GBMs across six institutions were aggregated. Astrocytic IDH-wt tumors of any grade that lacked necrosis or microvascular proliferation on initial histopathology yet exhibited molecular alterations consistent with WHO 2021 GBM diagnosis, were included. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to categorize patients into risk groups based on overall survival (OS). Among the 264 patients included, the median age was 60 years (IQR: 51-67), with 162 (61%) being male. Additionally, 210 (80%) were diagnosed since 2016, and 216 (82%) received chemoradiation plus adjuvant temozolomide (GBM-SOC). The median follow-up period was 3.9 years (95% CI: 3.4, 4.6). Identified univariate risk factors for worse survival included older age, biopsy-only status, EGFR amplification, absence of initial adjuvant treatment, low post-operative KPS, and tumor histologic grade of 3. RPA divided patients into four distinct survival groups (p&lt;0.0001). The “best” risk group comprised lower grade (&lt;=2) tumors (n=58, median OS (mOS): 40 months (95% CI: 33, NA)). The “second best” group included Grade 3 patients receiving GBM-SOC without steroids during initial RT (n=139, mOS: 25 months (95% CI: 22, 28)). The “second worst” group encompassed Grade 3 patients who were on steroids during initial RT while receiving GBM-SOC (n=38, mOS: 15 months (95% CI: 13, 20)). The “worst” group contained Grade 3 tumors that had not undergone SOC (n=29, mOS: 9 months (95% CI: 4, 26)). These data show that histologic features and treatment are strong indicators of patient outcomes.

Abstract BACKGROUND STELLAR was a phase III randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine (ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor) with lomustine versus lomustine alone in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA). We previously reported an overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of the combination in the patients with grade 3 IDH-mutant astrocytoma. Here we report updated OS and PFS outcomes based on additional molecular classification and blinded independent central review (BICR). METHOD Eligibility included: age ≥ 18 years, AA (2016 WHO criteria) with first recurrence ≥ 6 months after radiation, KPS ≥ 70, and no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Patients received eflornithine (2.8 g/m2 TID Q 2/3 weeks) with lomustine (90 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) (Arm A) or lomustine alone (110 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) (Arm B). Primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS Updated molecular data resulted in re-classification of the 343 AA patients enrolled into 3 WHO 2021 defined tumor subtypes, 196 tumors were IDHmut, CDKN2A/B intact, consistent with diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 3, 33 tumors had CDKN2A/B loss consistent with astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 4, 106 tumors were IDHwt consistent with diagnosis of glioblastoma, IDHwt, WHO grade 4. Updated results strengthen initial conclusion that eflornithine plus lomustine resulted in significant survival benefit in the astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 3 group (mOS 34.9 vs, 23.5 months, HR = 0.64, stratified log rank p =0.0136). PFS with eflornithine was also improved (15.8 vs, 7.2 months, HR = 0.57, stratified log rank p =0.0113). BICR demonstrated a high correlation between investigator and centrally determined PFS (p=0.0305), and high correlation between OS and PFS (p=.0001). CONCLUSION The clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits observed with eflornithine in the molecularly defined 2021 WHO CNS grade 3 astrocytomas is further confirmed and expanded based on additional molecular classification and BICR of PFS.

Abstract BACKGROUND Recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA), a grade 3 brain cancer, remains an unmet medical need. STELLAR was a phase III randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine (ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor) with lomustine versus lomustine alone, originally for patients with recurrent AA. However, as the WHO definition of AA evolved during trial conduct (e.g., excluding IDH wild-type disease), we determined results in both the original ITT population and by revised molecularly defined WHO 2021 diagnoses in pre-planned analyses. METHOD Key eligibility: age ≥ 18, AA (2016 WHO criteria), first recurrence ≥ 6 months after radiation and temozolomide, KPS ≥ 70, no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Stratification: IDH, age, resection extent, and geography. Patients were randomized to Arm A: eflornithine (2.8 g/m2 TID Q 2/3 weeks) with lomustine (90 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) or Arm B: lomustine (110 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks). Primary endpoint was OS. The pre-specified hazard ratio (HR) goal was 0.667 based on projected median OS (mOS) increase to 18 months from 12 months. RESULTS 343 pts (172/171 Arms A/B) were randomized (105 sites, 8 countries). ITT analysis found no difference between arms (mOS 23.4 vs. 20.3 months, HR = 0.94). However, a pre-specified subset analysis in IDH mutant, 2021 WHO-defined grade 3 astrocytoma (n=194), showed significant improvement with eflornithine (mOS 34.9 vs. 23.5 months, HR = 0.64, log rank p = 0.016) and PFS (15.8 vs. 7.2 months, HR = 0.58, log rank p = 0.015). No difference was observed in the IDH wild-type subset. AEs were consistent with historic data. CONCLUSION There was no difference in OS between arms in the ITT analysis. However, medically meaningful and statistically significant OS and PFS benefits were observed with eflornithine in the pre-planned analysis of patients with molecularly defined 2021 WHO CNS grade 3 astrocytoma.

Abstract GBM AGILE(NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies against a common control. Paxalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, is the 3rd arm in the trial to conclude evaluation. METHODS Paxalisib was open to patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and recurrent (RD) glioblastoma, with three possible signatures: NDU, RD, and All(NDU+RD). Arm enrollment occurred Dec2020 through May2022. Control patients were enrolled from study initiation (July2019) and were treated with temozolomide(NDU) or lomustine(RD). GBM AGILE investigational arms have 1 or 2 stages, with adaptive randomization in stage 1 and fixed randomization if arms continue to stage 2. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio(HR) of Arm/Control. Efficacy goal is final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR&lt;1.00 in combined Stages. An Arm continues to Stage 2 if Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8. An Arm stops accruing in Stage 1 if it reaches maximal sample size(N) or does not meet a minimum efficacy threshold (PP&lt;0.25 for all signatures when N&gt;50). Clinical cut-off is 12 months after accrual stops. The maximum N for paxalisib was approximately 150(Stage 1) and 50(Stage 2). RESULTS After paxalisib reached &gt;150 patients in Stage 1, accrual stopped [Paxalisib/control N 54/75(NDU), 100/188(RD)]. Neither PP thresholds for moving to Stage 2 nor stopping for minimum efficacy were met. Following an unplanned public disclosure that the arm did not continue to stage 2, clinical cut-off for final analysis (planned May2023) was updated to public disclosure date (August2022). At final analysis mean HRs were 0.89(NDU), 1.25(RD), 1.05(All), probabilities of HR&lt;1.00 of 0.72(NDU), 0.076(RD), 0.398(All). Model estimated median OS paxalisib/control (months) were 14.77/13.84(NDU) and 8.58/10.06(RD). CONCLUSION Paxalisib did not show survival benefit over cumulative control in final primary analysis; additional secondary analyses are being considered. GBM AGILE continues to rapidly and efficiently assess therapies in ND and RD glioblastoma.

Abstract Background Glioblastoma (GBM) has a median survival of &lt;2 years. Pexidartinib (PLX3397) is a small-molecule inhibitor of CSF1R, KIT, and oncogenic FTL3, which are implicated in GBM treatment resistance. Results from glioma models indicate that combining radiation therapy (RT) and pexidartinib reduces radiation resistance. We added pexidartinib to standard-of-care RT/temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM to assess the therapeutic benefit of altering the tumor microenvironment with pexidartinib. Methods In this open-label, dose-escalation, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 trial, pexidartinib was administered in combination with RT/TMZ followed by adjuvant pexidartinib + TMZ. During Phase 1b, pexidartinib was given 5 or 7 days/week at multiple dosing levels. The primary Phase 1b endpoint was the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Phase 2 patients received the RP2D with the primary endpoint of median progression-free survival (mPFS). Secondary objectives were median overall survival (mOS), pharmacokinetics, and safety. Results The RP2D of pexidartinib was 800 mg/day for 5 days/week during RT/TMZ, followed by 800 mg/day for 7 days/week with adjuvant TMZ. mPFS was 6.7 months (90% CI: 4.5, 11.5) for the modified intention-to-treat population. The actual mOS was 13.1 months (90% CI: 11.5, 24.5), and the mOS corrected for comparison with matched historical controls was 18.8 months (95% CI: 12.6, 28.0). Conclusions This trial established the RP2D of pexidartinib in combination with RT/TMZ and adjuvant TMZ. Pexidartinib was generally safe and well tolerated. Although the study regimen with pexidartinib was not efficacious, pharmacodynamic studies showed modulation of systemic markers that could lead to alteration of the tumor microenvironment.

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.

Abstract Methylation profiling of brain tumors has revealed novel clusters whose biological and clinical significance is unknown. These include three entities termed by the 12.5 version of the Heidelberg methylation classifier as adult-type diffuse high grade glioma, IDH-wildtype, subtype B (HGG_B), subtype E (HGG_E), and subtype F (HGG_F). We have identified 75 cases belonging to these groups: HGG_B (25 cases, 32% female), HGG_E (40 cases, 42% female), and HGG_F (18 cases, 33% female). Although originally characterized as “adult-type,” we find that 70% of HGG_E cases are pediatric, with a median age at diagnosis of 11 years. HGG_B cases are predominantly seen in young adults, and HGG_F in older adults. The histology varies among methylation classes, with HGG_B cases demonstrating high-grade, predominantly astrocytic, morphology, while HGG_E cases demonstrate high-grade glial histology with distinct nuclear features, and HGG_F cases show highly infiltrative but lower grade glial morphology. Patient outcome data obtained to date shows a collective median survival exceeding 5 years, suggesting re-consideration of the proposed grading for these tumors. MGMT promoter methylation differs across the HGG_B (0%), HGG_E (12%), and HGG_F (0%) subtypes. Mutational analyses show enrichment of TERT promoter mutations in the HGG_F group, while HGG_E samples are enriched for tumors with POLE mutations and elevated tumor mutation burden. HGG_E tumors show epigenetic similarity to pediatric high-grade diffuse gliomas (pedHGG_RTK1A); we therefore propose that HGG_E be considered a pediatric-type HGG. HGG_B tumors show demographic and genomic similarities to high-grade astrocytomas with piloid features, including a subset of cases with CDKN2A/2B loss and ATRX mutation. HGG_F separate into two groups dictated by brain location, and despite the presence of TERT promoter mutations, appear distinct from GBMs. Overall, our work represents an initial effort to understand the morphologic, genomic and clinical characteristics of these previously uncharacterized subtypes of gliomas.