Citations

Abstract Tumor-related epilepsy (TRE) is a frequent and major consequence of brain tumors. Management of TRE is required throughout the course of disease and a deep understanding of diagnosis and treatment is key to improving quality of life. Gross total resection is favored from both an oncologic and epilepsy perspective. Shared mechanisms of tumor growth and epilepsy exist, and emerging data will provide better targeted therapy options. Initial treatment with antiseizure medications (ASM) in conjunction with surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy is typical. The first choice of ASM is critical to optimize seizure control and tolerability considering the effects of the tumor itself. These agents carry a potential for drug–drug interactions and therefore knowledge of mechanisms of action and interactions is needed. A review of adverse effects is necessary to guide ASM adjustments and decision-making. This review highlights the essential aspects of diagnosis and treatment of TRE with ASMs, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy while indicating areas of uncertainty. Future studies should consider the use of a standardized method of seizure tracking and incorporating seizure outcomes as a primary endpoint of tumor treatment trials.

PURPOSE Patients with progressive or recurrent meningiomas have limited systemic therapy options. Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) inhibition has a synthetic lethal relationship with NF2 loss. Given the predominance of NF2 mutations in meningiomas, we evaluated the efficacy of GSK2256098, a FAK inhibitor, as part of the first genomically driven phase II study in recurrent or progressive grade 1-3 meningiomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients whose tumors screened positively for NF2 mutations were treated with GSK2256098, 750 mg orally twice daily, until progressive disease. Efficacy was evaluated using two coprimary end points: progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6) and response rate by Macdonald criteria, where PFS6 was evaluated separately within grade-based subgroups: grade 1 versus 2/3 meningiomas. Per study design, the FAK inhibitor would be considered promising in this patient population if either end point met the corresponding decision criteria for efficacy. RESULTS Of 322 patients screened for all mutation cohorts of the study, 36 eligible and evaluable patients with NF2 mutations were enrolled and treated: 12 grade 1 and 24 grade 2/3 patients. Across all grades, one patient had a partial response and 24 had stable disease as their best response to treatment. In grade 1 patients, the observed PFS6 rate was 83% (10/12 patients; 95% CI, 52 to 98). In grade 2/3 patients, the observed PFS6 rate was 33% (8/24 patients; 95% CI, 16 to 55). The study met the PFS6 efficacy end point both for the grade 1 and the grade 2/3 cohorts. Treatment was well tolerated; seven patients had a maximum grade 3 adverse event that was at least possibly related to treatment with no grade 4 or 5 events. CONCLUSION GSK2256098 was well tolerated and resulted in an improved PFS6 rate in patients with recurrent or progressive NF2-mutated meningiomas, compared with historical controls. The criteria for promising activity were met, and FAK inhibition warrants further evaluation for this patient population.

Abstract Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant gliomas are the most common adult, malignant primary brain tumors diagnosed in patients younger than 50, constituting an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, sparking multiple efforts to improve their diagnosis and treatment. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), the current diagnosis and management of IDH-mutant gliomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies, such as targeted molecular therapies and immunotherapies, will be reviewed. Current challenges and future directions for research will be discussed.

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.

PURPOSE American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has developed a guideline on appropriate radiation therapy for brain metastases. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS “Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline” 2 was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the ASTRO guideline, published May 6, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses “Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.” 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Within the guideline, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is recommended for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and up to four intact brain metastases, and conditionally recommended for patients with up to 10 intact brain metastases. The guideline provides detailed dosing and fractionation recommendations on the basis of the size of the metastases. For patients with resected brain metastases, radiation therapy (SRS or whole-brain radiation therapy [WBRT]) is recommended to improve intracranial disease control; if there are limited additional brain metastases, SRS is recommended over WBRT. For patients with favorable prognosis and brain metastases ineligible for surgery and/or SRS, WBRT is recommended with hippocampal avoidance where possible and the addition of memantine is recommended. For patients with brain metastases, limiting the single-fraction V 12Gy to brain tissue to ≤ 10 cm 3 is conditionally recommended. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Abstract Background Patients with glioblastoma (GBM) have a poor prognosis and limited effective treatment options. Bevacizumab has been approved for treatment of recurrent GBM, but there is questionable survival benefit. Based on preclinical and early clinical data indicating that CD105 upregulation may represent a mechanism of resistance to bevacizumab, we hypothesized that combining bevacizumab with the anti-CD105 antibody TRC105 may improve efficacy in recurrent GBM. Methods Phase I dose-escalation/comparative randomized phase II trial in patients with GBM. During phase I, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab was determined. In phase II, patients were randomized 1:1 to TRC105 and bevacizumab or bevacizumab monotherapy. Patients received TRC105 (10 mg/kg) weekly and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. Efficacy, as assessed by progression-free survival (PFS), was the primary endpoint; safety, quality of life, and correlative outcomes were also evaluated. Results In total, 15 patients were enrolled in phase I and 101 in phase II; 52 patients were randomized to TRC105 with bevacizumab and 49 to bevacizumab monotherapy. The MTD was determined to be 10 mg/kg TRC105 weekly plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. An increased occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events was seen in the combination arm, including higher incidences of anemia. Median PFS was similar in both treatment arms: 2.9 months for combination versus 3.2 months for bevacizumab monotherapy (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.75–1.78, P = .51). Quality of life scores were similar for both treatment arms. Conclusions TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab was well tolerated in patients with recurrent GBM, but no difference in efficacy was observed compared to bevacizumab monotherapy.

Abstract Purpose To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. Results Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. Recommendations Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

PURPOSE To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

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.