Citations

Abstract Background Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis. Methods Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the interobserver pairwise agreement. Results Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons, and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions. Conclusion This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with “blocking options” may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.

Abstract Background There is an extensive literature highlighting the utility of blood-based liquid biopsies in several extracranial tumors for diagnosis and monitoring. Methods The RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) group developed a multidisciplinary international Task Force to review the English literature on liquid biopsy in gliomas focusing on the most frequently used techniques, that is circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells, and extracellular vesicles in blood and CSF. Results ctDNA has a higher sensitivity and capacity to represent the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in comparison to circulating tumor cells. Exosomes have the advantages to cross an intact blood-brain barrier and carry also RNA, miRNA, and proteins. Several clinical applications of liquid biopsies are suggested: to establish a diagnosis when tissue is not available, monitor the residual disease after surgery, distinguish progression from pseudoprogression, and predict the outcome. Conclusions There is a need for standardization of biofluid collection, choice of an analyte, and detection strategies along with rigorous testing in future clinical trials to validate findings and enable entry into clinical practice.

Abstract BACKGROUND Validation of the 2016 LANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. The objective of this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort was to validate the feasibility of the revised MRI scorecard for assessing response in leptomeningeal metastasis. METHODS Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The kappa coefficient (K) was used to evaluate inter-observer pairwise agreement. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS V9.4 software (Cary, NC). The sponsor of the study was the University Hospital Zurich (2018-00192). RESULTS Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons and 2 medical oncologists. Among leptomeningeal metastases-related items at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (K=0.63), and the worst median for spinal linear enhancing disease (K=0.46). The median concordance for overall response was moderate (K=0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was minimal (K=0.29). Significant differences were observed when considering the specialty of the raters. Only 394 of 700 ratings (56%) were fully completed. Among 394 fully completed ratings, perfect concordance was noted in 293 ratings (74%) when comparing the overall response according to the guidelines provided in the scorecard and the overall response provided by the raters. The main discordances were noted for partial response according to the rater versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=44), followed by progression according to the raters versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=23). CONCLUSION Electronic case report forms with "blocking solutions" are probably required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring. These results confirm the necessity of central review and the need for training of MRI assessment in clinical trials.

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 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.

Abstract Background Response to targeted therapy varies between patients for largely unknown reasons. Here, we developed and applied an integrative platform using mass spectrometry imaging (MSI), phosphoproteomics, and multiplexed tissue imaging for mapping drug distribution, target engagement, and adaptive response to gain insights into heterogeneous response to therapy. Methods Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) lines of glioblastoma were treated with adavosertib, a Wee1 inhibitor, and tissue drug distribution was measured with MALDI-MSI. Phosphoproteomics was measured in the same tumors to identify biomarkers of drug target engagement and cellular adaptive response. Multiplexed tissue imaging was performed on sister sections to evaluate spatial co-localization of drug and cellular response. The integrated platform was then applied on clinical specimens from glioblastoma patients enrolled in the phase 1 clinical trial. Results PDX tumors exposed to different doses of adavosertib revealed intra- and inter-tumoral heterogeneity of drug distribution and integration of the heterogeneous drug distribution with phosphoproteomics and multiplexed tissue imaging revealed new markers of molecular response to adavosertib. Analysis of paired clinical specimens from patients enrolled in the phase 1 clinical trial informed the translational potential of the identified biomarkers in studying patient’s response to adavosertib. Conclusions The multimodal platform identified a signature of drug efficacy and patient-specific adaptive responses applicable to preclinical and clinical drug development. The information generated by the approach may inform mechanisms of success and failure in future early phase clinical trials, providing information for optimizing clinical trial design and guiding future application into clinical practice.

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.