Citations

BackgroundSrc signaling is markedly upregulated in patients with invasive glioblastoma (GBM) after the administration of bevacizumab. The Src family kinase inhibitor dasatinib has been found to effectively block bevacizumab‐induced glioma invasion in preclinical models, which led to the hypothesis that combining bevacizumab with dasatinib could increase bevacizumab efficacy in patients with recurrent GBM.MethodsAfter the completion of the phase 1 component, the phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00892177) randomized patients with recurrent GBM 2:1 to receive 100 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B) on days 1 to 14 of each 14‐day cycle combined with 10 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of each 14‐day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6‐month progression‐free survival (PFS6).ResultsIn the 121 evaluable patients, the PFS6 rate was numerically, but not statistically, higher in arm A versus arm B (28.9% [95% CI, 19.5%‐40.0%] vs 18.4% [95% CI, 7.7%‐34.4%]; P = .22). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the median overall survival noted between the treatment arms (7.3 months and 7.7 months, respectively; P = .93). The objective response rate was 15.7% in arm A and 26.3% in arm B (P = .52), but with a significantly longer duration in patients treated on arm A (16.3 months vs 2 months). The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was comparable between treatment arms, with hematologic toxicities occurring more frequently in arm A versus arm B (15.7% vs 7.9%) (adverse events were assessed as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Correlative tissue analysis demonstrated an association between pSRC/LYN signaling in patient tumors and outcome.ConclusionsDespite upregulation of Src signaling in patients with GBM, the combination of bevacizumab with dasatinib did not appear to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with recurrent GBM compared with bevacizumab alone.

PURPOSE Adequately prioritizing the numerous therapies and biomarkers available in late-stage testing for patients with glioblastoma (GBM) requires an efficient clinical testing platform. We developed and implemented INSIGhT (Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy) as a novel adaptive platform trial (APT) to develop precision medicine approaches in GBM. METHODS INSIGhT compares experimental arms with a common control of standard concurrent temozolomide and radiation therapy followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary end point is overall survival. Patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated GBM who are IDH R132H mutation negative and with genomic data available for biomarker grouping are eligible. At the initiation of INSIGhT, three experimental arms (neratinib, abemaciclib, and CC-115), each with a proposed genomic biomarker, are tested simultaneously. Initial randomization is equal across arms. As the trial progresses, randomization probabilities adapt on the basis of accumulating results using Bayesian estimation of the biomarker-specific probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival. Treatment arms may drop because of low probability of treatment impact on overall survival, and new arms may be added. Detailed information on the statistical model and randomization algorithm is provided to stimulate discussion on trial design choices more generally and provide an example for other investigators developing APTs. CONCLUSION INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is an ongoing novel biomarker-based, Bayesian APT for patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated GBM. Our goal is to dramatically shorten trial execution timelines while increasing scientific power of results and biomarker discovery using adaptive randomization. We anticipate that trial execution efficiency will also be improved by using the APT format, which allows for the collaborative addition of new experimental arms while retaining the overall trial structure.

PURPOSE The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS Two CNS guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, and an independent multidisciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The Expert Panel voted to endorse the two guidelines, and ASCO and Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines with minor alterations. RECOMMENDATIONS Key recommendations include the following: prophylactic antiepileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; and corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Abstract The finding that most grades II and III gliomas harbor isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations conveying a relatively favorable and fairly similar prognosis in both tumor grades highlights that these tumors represent a fundamentally different entity from IDH wild-type gliomas exemplified in most glioblastoma. Herein we review the most recent developments in molecular neuropathology leading to reclassification of these tumors based upon IDH and 1p/19q status, as well as the potential roles of methylation profiling and deletional analysis of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A and 2B. We discuss the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, benefit of surgical resection, and neuroimaging features of lower-grade gliomas as they relate to molecular subtype, including advanced imaging techniques such as 2-hydroxyglutarate magnetic resonance spectroscopy and amino acid PET scanning. Recent, ongoing, and planned studies of radiation therapy and both cytotoxic and targeted chemotherapies are summarized, including both small molecule and immunotherapy approaches specifically targeting the mutant IDH protein.

AbstractThe combination of pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (DEX) was evaluated for relapsed/refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) and primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of POM as the primary objective, and overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety profile as secondary objectives. A cohorts-of-3 study design was used with a dose-escalation schedule consisting of POM (3, 5, 7, or 10 mg) orally daily for 21 days every 28 days and DEX 40 mg orally every week. After 2 cycles, POM was continued alone until disease progression, intolerance, or subject withdrawal. Following MTD determination, the MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-five of 29 patients with the median of 3 prior treatments were eligible for assessment as per international PCNSL collaborative group criteria. The MTD of POM was 5 mg daily for 21 days every 28 days. Whole-study ORR was 48% (12 of 25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.8%, 68.7%) with 6 complete response (CR), 2 complete response, unconfirmed (CRu), and 4 partial response (PR). MTD cohort ORR was 50% (8 of 16; 95% CI, 24.7%, 75.4%) with 5 CR, 1 CRu, and 2 PR. Median PFS was 5.3 months (whole study) and 9 months (for responders). One patient had pseudoprogression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (21%), anemia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included lung infection (12%), sepsis (4%), fatigue (8%), syncope (4%), dyspnea (4%), hypoxia (4%), respiratory failure (8%), and rash (4%). POM/DEX treatment is feasible with significant therapeutic activity against relapsed/refractory PCNSL and PVRL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01722305.

TPS2079 Background: Patient with glioblastoma (GBM) with unmethylated MGMT promoters derive limited benefit from temozolomide (TMZ) and have dismal outcome. Prioritizing the numerous available therapies and biomarkers for late stage testing requires an efficient clinical testing platform. INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is a biomarker-based, Bayesian adaptively randomized, multi-arm phase II platform screening trial for patients with newly diagnosed GBM and unmethylated MGMT promoters. Methods: INSIGhT compares experimental arms to a common control of standard concurrent TMZ and radiation therapy (RT) followed by adjuvant TMZ. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Patients with newly diagnosed, unmethylated GBM that are IDH R132H mutation negative, and with genomic data available or who consent to whole exome sequencing through the ALLELE companion study for biomarker grouping are eligible. Two experimental arms consist of concurrent RT/TMZ followed by adjuvant neratinib (EGFR, HER2, and HER4 inhibitor) or abemaciclib CDK 4/6 inhibitor), respectively, in place of TMZ. The other experimental arm is CC-115 (TORC1/2 and DNA PK inhibitor), which replaces TMZ in both the concurrent and adjuvant phases. Biomarker groups include: EGFR + patients with EGFR amplification/mutation; PI3K + patients with PIK3CA mutation/amplification, PIK3R1 mutation, AKT3amplification, PIK3C2B > 1 copy gain, or PTEN dual loss; CDK: + patients with wild-type RB1 and CDK4 amplification, CDK6 amplification, or CDKN2A > 1 copy loss. Given the lack of pretrial biomarker data and the anticipated overlap of the groups, randomization will initially be equal. As the trial progresses, randomization probabilities will be adapted based on the Bayesian estimation of the probability of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). These randomization probabilities can vary among the biomarker groups so predictive biomarkers will be identified and utilized if present. Treatment arms may drop due to low probability of treatment impact on OS, and new arms may be added. Experimental arms are compared only with control and should be thought of as discrete experimental questions, with INSIGhT being open to new investigators with proposed therapeutic hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.