Citations

PURPOSE The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial that uses response adaptive randomization and genomic profiling to efficiently identify novel therapies for phase III testing. Three initial experimental arms (abemaciclib [a cyclin-dependent kinase [CDK]4/6 inhibitor], neratinib [an epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor], and CC-115 [a deoxyribonucleic acid–dependent protein kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor]) were simultaneously evaluated against a common control arm. We report the results for each arm and examine the feasibility and conduct of the adaptive platform design. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed O 6 -methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma were eligible if they had tumor genotyping to identify prespecified biomarker subpopulations of dominant glioblastoma signaling pathways (EGFR, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and CDK). Initial random assignment was 1:1:1:1 between control (radiation therapy and temozolomide) and the experimental arms. Subsequent Bayesian adaptive randomization was incorporated on the basis of biomarker-specific progression-free survival (PFS) data. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and one-sided P values are reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02977780 ). RESULTS Two hundred thirty-seven patients were treated (71 control; 73 abemaciclib; 81 neratinib; 12 CC-115) in years 2017-2021. Abemaciclib and neratinib were well tolerated, but CC-115 was associated with ≥ grade 3 treatment-related toxicity in 58% of patients. PFS was significantly longer with abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.06; one-sided P = .046) and neratinib (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.02; one-sided P = .033) relative to the control arm but there was no PFS benefit with CC-115 (one-sided P = .523). None of the experimental therapies demonstrated a significant OS benefit ( P > .05). CONCLUSION The INSIGhT design enabled efficient simultaneous testing of three experimental agents using a shared control arm and adaptive randomization. Two investigational arms had superior PFS compared with the control arm, but none demonstrated an OS benefit. The INSIGhT design may promote improved and more efficient therapeutic discovery in glioblastoma. New arms have been added to the trial.

2012 Background: Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. We report on the feasibility and conduct of this approach. Methods: Tumor genotyping was performed prior to treatment assignment on eligible participants with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma to identify biomarker signatures. Initial randomization was 1:1:1:1 between control (temozolomide) and 3 experimental arms (abemaciclib, CC-115, and neratinib). Subsequent randomization was adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-naïve and biomarker-specific probabilities of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective or toxic arms were discontinued by protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: INSIGhT randomized 71 patients to the control arm, 73 patients to the abemaciclib arm, 12 patients to the CC-115 arm, and 81 patients to the neratinib arm between 2/9/2017 and 5/14/2021. Following the initial equal randomization period, early data were repeatedly analyzed during the study to capture early signals of treatment effects across the enrolled population or in specific biomarker subgroups. The results of these interim analyses influenced the randomization probability for future enrolled patients. In total, 77% of the participants were randomized before assessing their biomarker profile and 23% were biomarker randomized. The CC-115 arm opened and closed three times during the safety lead-in. The randomization probability to the CC-115 arm decreased based on poor early PFS results and the arm eventually closed after 12 patients due to toxicity. The randomization probability to the abemacicilb arm increased based on promising early PFS results. After the completion of accrual into the abemaciclib arm, the trial switched to block randomization to finish enrolling into the remaining neratinib and control arms. A total of 28 interim analyses and 32 randomization tables were created throughout the course of the trial with 4 adjustments (3 due to CC-115 closures and 1 due to completion of the abemaciclib arm). Biomarker association trends for neratinib and abemaciclib were similar to those seen in preclinical modeling of the trial. Conclusions: Relative to a standard randomization design, the adaptive platform design facilitated more efficient and economical testing of experimental arms by sharing a control arm, decreasing the probability of enrollment to potentially ineffective arms, and increasing the probability of enrollment to potentially effective arms. Additional future arms are planned on INSIGhT. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

Context.— The diagnosis and clinical management of patients with diffuse gliomas (DGs) have evolved rapidly over the past decade with the emergence of molecular biomarkers that are used to classify, stratify risk, and predict treatment response for optimal clinical care. Objective.— To develop evidence-based recommendations for informing molecular biomarker testing for pediatric and adult patients with DGs and provide guidance for appropriate laboratory test and biomarker selection for optimal diagnosis, risk stratification, and prediction. Design.— The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop recommendations. A systematic review of literature was conducted to address the overarching question, “What ancillary tests are needed to classify DGs and sufficiently inform the clinical management of patients?” Recommendations were derived from quality of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. Results.— Thirteen recommendations and 3 good practice statements were established to guide pathologists and treating physicians on the most appropriate methods and molecular biomarkers to include in laboratory testing to inform clinical management of patients with DGs. Conclusions.— Evidence-based incorporation of laboratory results from molecular biomarker testing into integrated diagnoses of DGs provides reproducible and clinically meaningful information for patient management.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial with Bayesian adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to prioritize therapies for late-stage testing. METHODS In the ongoing INSIGhT trial, patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma are randomized to the control arm or one of three experimental therapy arms (CC-115, abemaciclib, and neratinib). The control arm therapy is radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide, and primary endpoint is overall survival. Randomization has been adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-specific probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). All tumors undergo detailed molecular sequencing, and this is facilitated with the companion ALLELE protocol. To evaluate feasibility of this approach, we assessed the status of this ongoing trial. RESULTS Since INSIGhT was activated 4.3 years ago, it has expanded to include 12 sites across the United States. A total of 247 patients have been enrolled. Randomization probabilities have been repeatedly adjusted over time based upon early PFS results to alter the randomization ratio from standard 1:1:1:1 randomization. All three arms have completed accrual and efficacy estimates are available based upon comparison to the common control arm in context of relevant biomarkers. There are 87 patients alive and in follow-up, and there are ongoing plans to add additional arms to evaluate further treatments in the future. CONCLUSION The INSIGhT trial demonstrates that a multi-center Bayesian adaptive platform trial is a feasible and effective approach to help prioritize therapies and biomarkers for newly diagnosed GBM. The trial has maintained robust accrual, and the simultaneous testing of multiple agents, sharing a common control arm and adaptive randomization serve as features to increase trial efficiency relative to traditional clinical trial designs.

Abstract BACKGROUND EGFR is amplified in over 50% of glioblastoma and 20-30% have EGFRvIII mutations. Neratinib is a potent inhibitor of EGFR/HER2 approved for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. To efficiently evaluate the potential impact of neratinib on overall survival (OS) in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, neratinib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between neratinib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). We report preliminary results for the neratinib arm. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant neratinib (240 mg daily). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS. Association between neratinib efficacy and EGFR amplification was also investigated. RESULTS There were 144 patients (70 control; 74 neratinib). Neratinib was reasonably well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was compared (HR 0.84; p=0.38, logrank test – not significant) between the neratinib (median 6.05 months) and control (median 5.82 months) arms. For patients EGFR pathway activation the PFS HR was 0.53 (p-value=0.03 – significant, median PFS: neratinib, 6.21 months, control, 5.26 months). However, there was no significant improvement in OS in EGFR amplified/mutated patients (HR 1.05; p-value 0.87) between neratinib (median 14.2) compared to the control arm (median 14.6). CONCLUSION Neratinib prolonged PFS in the EGFR positive subpopulation but there was no overall PFS benefit, or any OS improvement.

Abstract Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for many hard-to-treat cancers but has yet to produce significant improvement in outcomes for patients with glioblastoma. This reflects the multiple and unique mechanisms of immune evasion and escape in this highly heterogeneous tumor. Glioblastoma engenders profound local and systemic immunosuppression and is remarkably effective at inducing T-cell dysfunction, posing a challenge to any immunotherapy-based approach. To overcome these mechanisms, multiple disparate modes of immune-oriented therapy will be required. However, designing trials that can evaluate these combinatorial approaches requires careful consideration. In this review, we explore the immunotherapy resistance mechanisms that have been encountered to date and how combinatorial approaches may address these. We also describe the unique aspects of trial design in both preclinical and clinical settings and consider endpoints and markers of response best suited for an intervention involving multiple agents.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel–novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel–novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel–novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design.

2016 Background: Among the primary aims of new therapies for glioblastoma (GBM) are the reduction of morbidity and restoration or preservation of quality of life (QoL). Selinexor (SEL) is a first-in class, oral, selective inhibitor of nuclear export which blocks exportin 1 (XPO1), forcing the nuclear retention and reactivation of tumor suppressor proteins, ultimately causing cell death in cancer cells. SEL is approved for the treatment of previously treated multiple myeloma and DLBCL. XPORT-GBM-029 (NCT04421378) is a phase 1 dose finding study followed by an open-label randomized phase 2, 3-arm trial to evaluate SEL in combination with standard therapies for newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM: Arm A (ndGBM, uMGMT) – radiation +/- SEL; Arm B (ndGBM, mMGMT) – radiation and temozolomide +/- SEL; Arm C (rGBM) – lomustine +/- SEL at first relapse. We look to identify sensitive, reliable, and clinically meaningful digital assessments of the functional status of ndGBM and rGBM patients via a patient-centric approach. Methods: XPORT-GBM-029 incorporates standard clinical and imaging evaluations of GBM progression with novel digital tools that objectively measure motor and cognitive function. The study is conducted at 50 sites globally with the aim of enrolling 350 patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM. Following discussions with KOLs and patient advocacy partners at EndbrainCancer, we surveyed GBM patients and their caregivers to identify disease manifestations critical to patients’ QoL. The survey revealed four key areas impacting patients’ QoL that can be affected by GBM therapies and can be objectively monitored: cognitive function, lateralization, fatigue, and sleep. In this trial we use objective measurements to evaluate SEL’s effects on GBM patients’ QoL. Patients wear inertial sensors to measure their activity and sleep and complete a cognitive battery at baseline and before each MRI. Results: Associations between objective digital measures of activity, gait, fatigue, sleep, and cognition will be examined with respect to clinical assessments including physical examinations, modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (mRANO), Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO), Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) and Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) QoL questionnaires. Descriptive summary statistics and plots are employed in exploratory data analysis, and other advanced data mining methods may also be considered. Conclusions: XPORT-GBM-029 trial is probably the first large, prospective, longitudinal study in GBM patients employing digital markers and may provide useful information regarding the utility of wearable and mobile devices for measuring functional outcomes in clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT04421378.

2014 Background: The cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway is activated in most glioblastomas. Abemaciclib is a potent CDK4/6 inhibitor with good brain penetration approved for HR+/HER2- breast cancer. In order to efficiently evaluate the potential impact of abemaciclib on overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to simultaneously develop information regarding potential genomic biomarker associations, abemaciclib was included as an arm on the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. INSIGhT is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. Initial randomization was equal between abemaciclib, control, and two other experimental arms but subsequent randomization was adapted based on efficacy as determined by progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective arms were discontinued and new arms added by protocol amendment. We report preliminary results for the abemaciclib arm which has completed accrual. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma were randomized to receive either radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide at standard doses or standard radiochemotherapy followed by adjuvant abemaciclib (150-200 mg orally BID). Treatment continued until progression or development of unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was OS which was assessed using the log-rank test estimated via the Kaplan Meier method using a type I error of 5%. The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a cox proportional hazards model. Association between abemaciclib efficacy and cyclin D-CDK4/6-Rb pathway genomic alterations was also investigated. Results: There were 142 patients (69 control; 73 treated with abemaciclib). Abemaciclib was generally well-tolerated with no new toxicity signals identified. PFS was significantly longer (HR 0.67; p = 0.03, logrank test) with abemaciclib (median 6.54 months) compared to the control arm (median 5.88 months). For patients with activation of the CDK4 pathway the PFS HR was 0.64 (p-value = 0.04). However, there was no significant improvement in overall survival (HR 0.9; p-value > 0.05) between abemaciclib (median 15.5) compared to the control arm (median 15.5). Conclusions: Abemaciclib was well-tolerated and prolonged PFS but there is no evidence of an overall survival improvement compared to standard radiochemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

2006 Background: Adaptive randomization adjusts enrollment rates based upon early trial results, which can allow for decreased enrollment for therapies less likely to meet the primary endpoint of a trial. CC-115, a CNS-penetrant, oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin kinase (mTOR) and deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), was evaluated in the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. As CC-115 was discontinued due to concerns about toxicity and unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio, we sought to investigate the impact of adaptive randomization in its testing. Methods: In INSIGhT, adults with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma and available genomic data are adaptively randomized to an experimental arm or the control arm of standard radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients randomized to CC-115 received it (10mg po BID) with radiotherapy and as adjuvant monotherapy, and a safety lead-in 3+3 design was used for this arm. By simulating the INSIGhT trial with standard uniform randomization, we estimated the reduction of enrollment rate and sample size of the CC-115 arm that was attributable to adaptive randomization. Results: Twelve patients were randomized to CC-115; 58% (n = 7) patients had possible treatment-related CTCAE grade > 3 toxicity. Compared to the control arm, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS, HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32-1.36, p = 0.3) or overall survival (OS, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43-2.03, p = 0.8). Based on early PFS results, randomization probability to CC-115 decreased from 25% to 16%. At the time of the CC-115 arm closure, 14% of enrolled INSIGhT patients had been randomized to this arm. Compared to average expected enrollment by standard randomization, the use of adaptive randomization decreased the number of patients randomized to CC-115 by 50% (12 patients vs. 18 patients [95% CI 11-25 patients]). Conclusions: The INSIGhT trial, designed with adaptive randomization, facilitated more efficient testing of CC-115 and decreased the number of patients allocated to the CC-115 arm relative to a standard randomization design. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.