Citations

Abstract BACKGROUND Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt cancer cell division. TTFields treatment showed efficacy in preclinical non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) models. Furthermore, TTFields therapy improved survival with a tolerable safety profile in patients with glioblastoma. The objective of the pivotal METIS trial [NCT02831959] is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TTFields therapy in NSCLC patients with brain metastases. METHODS NSCLC patients (N=270) with 1–10 brain metastases will be randomized 1:1 to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) followed by continuous TTFields therapy using NovoTTF-200M (150 kHz, recommended >18 h/day) with best standard of care (BSC) or SRS followed by BSC alone. Follow-ups will be conducted every 2 months until second intracranial progression. Key inclusion criteria are: Karnofsky Performance Status ≥70, new diagnosis of 1 inoperable or 2–10 supra- and/or infratentorial brain metastases from NSCLC amenable to SRS, and optimal therapy for extracranial disease. Key exclusion criteria are: prior whole brain radiotherapy, single operable, or recurrent brain metastases. Primary endpoint is time to first intracranial progression. Secondary endpoints include time to neurocognitive failure, overall survival, radiological response rate (RANO-BM and RECIST V1.1), quality of life, adverse events, time to first/second intracranial progression for patients with 1–4 and 5–10 brain metastases, bi-monthly intracranial progression rate from 2–12 months, and time to second intracranial and distant progression. The study is powered at 80% (2-sided alpha of 0.05) to detect a hazard ratio of 0.57. In July 2021, an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) reviewed the study data and recommended continuation as planned. The trial is currently recruiting at 92 sites in North America, Europe, Israel, mainland China and Hong Kong.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the basis of the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOTs) are chemotherapy-sensitive brain tumors. We report the final very long-term survival results from European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 phase III trials initiated in 1990s, which both studied radiotherapy with/without neo/adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) for newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. The median follow-up duration in both was 18-19 years. For European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951, median, 14-year, and probable 20-year overall survival rates without versus with PCV were 2.6 years, 13.4%, and 10.1% versus 3.5 years, 25.1%, and 16.8% (N = 368 overall; hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = .033), with 1p19q codeletion 9.3 years, 26.2%, and 13.6% versus 14.2 years, 51.0%, and 37.1% (n = 80; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03; P = .063), respectively. For Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402, analogous results were 4.8 years, 16.5%, and 11.2% versus 4.8 years, 29.1%, and 24.6% (N = 289 overall; HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03; P = .08), with codeletion 7.3 years, 25.0%, and 14.9% versus 13.2 years, 46.1%, and 37% (n = 125; HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = .02), respectively. With that, the studies show similar long-term survival even without tumor recurrence in a significant proportion of patients after first-line treatment with radiotherapy/PCV.

Abstract Brain metastases occur commonly in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Yet, less is known about brain metastases than cancer-related entities of similar incidence. Advances in oncologic care have heightened the importance of intracranial management. Here, in this consensus review supported by the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), we review the landscape of brain metastases with particular attention to management approaches and ongoing efforts with potential to shape future paradigms of care. Each coauthor carried an area of expertise within the field of brain metastases and initially composed, edited, or reviewed their specific subsection of interest. After each subsection was accordingly written, multiple drafts of the manuscript were circulated to the entire list of authors for group discussion and feedback. The hope is that the these consensus guidelines will accelerate progress in the understanding and management of patients with brain metastases, and highlight key areas in need of further exploration that will lead to dedicated trials and other research investigations designed to advance the field.

Abstract BACKGROUND PCV+RT substantially prolongs survival in AO patients, but long-term CF and QOL implications are unclear. We compared CF and QOL by treatment arm in RTOG 9402 participants and evaluated the impact that baseline characteristics had on CF, QOL, and survival. METHODS CF and QOL were evaluated using the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) and Brain-Quality of Life (B-QOL) scale at baseline and annually. Scores were analyzed between treatment arms at each time point for patients with ≥ 10 years of follow-up data. Shared parameter models evaluated MMSE and B-QOL scores and survival for all patients. RESULTS 42/148 (28.4%) participants in PCV+RT and 20/143 (14%) in RT alone arms survived ≥ 10 years. 35/42 and 39/42 (PCV+RT) and 18/20 and 17/20 (RT) participants completed baseline B-QOL and MMSE assessments, respectively. B-QOL scores did not differ between treatment groups at any time-point. Among 16 patients (10 PCV+RT, 6 RT) who completed year 10 MMSE evaluations, mean MMSE score at 10 years was higher in the RT arm (29.83 [95% CI 22.1, 30.0] vs. 26.50 [95% CI 29.4, 30.0], P= 0.04). Change in MMSE and B-QOL scores from baseline did not differ significantly between treatment groups at any time. In shared parameter models including all patients with baseline assessments, MMSE and B-QOL scores decreased over time (MMSE P= 0.0189, B-QOL P= 0.0005), but this did not differ by treatment group (MMSE P= 0.5727, B-QOL P= 0.3592). Younger age and higher KPS predicted better scores (MMSE P < 0.0001, P = 0.0002; B-QOL P = 0.0043, P = 0.0007). PCV+RT predicted better survival in both models. CONCLUSIONS PCV+RT improves survival in AO. Shared parameter models show decrease in MMSE and B-QOL over time. However, relative to RT alone, the addition of PCV did not impact change in CF and QOL over time.

Abstract Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as “recruiting” or “not yet recruiting” as of February 2021.

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.

PURPOSE This study sought to determine the prognostic significance of the WHO-defined glioma molecular subgroups along with additional alterations, including MGMT promoter methylation and mutations in ATRX, CIC, FUBP1, TERT, and TP53, in NRG/RTOG 0424 using long-term follow-up data. METHODS Mutations were determined using an Ion Torrent sequencing panel. 1p/19q co-deletion and MGMT promoter methylation were determined by Affymetrix OncoScan and Illumina 450K arrays. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and tested using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model. Multivariable analyses (MVAs) included patient pretreatment characteristics. RESULTS We obtained complete molecular data to categorize 80/129 eligible patients within the WHO subgroups. Of these, 26 (32.5%) were IDHmutant/co-deleted, 28 (35%) were IDHmutant/non-co-deleted, and 26 (32.5%) were IDHwild-type. Upon single-marker MVA, both IDHmutant subgroups were associated with significantly better OS and PFS ( P values < .001), compared with the IDHwild-type subgroup. MGMT promoter methylation was obtained on 76 patients, where 58 (76%) were methylated and 18 (24%) were unmethylated. Single-marker MVAs demonstrated that MGMT promoter methylation was statistically significant for OS ( P value < .001) and PFS ( P value = .003). In a multimarker MVA, one WHO subgroup comparison ( IDHmutant/co-deleted v IDHwild-type) was significant for OS ( P value = .045), whereas MGMT methylation did not retain significance. CONCLUSION This study reports the long-term prognostic effect of the WHO molecular subgroups, MGMT promoter methylation, and other mutations in NRG/RTOG 0424. These results demonstrate that the WHO molecular classification and MGMT both serve as strong prognostic indicators, but that MGMT does not appear to add statistically significant prognostic value to the WHO subgrouping, above and beyond IDH and 1p/19q status.

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.