Citations

Abstract Glioblastomas are the most common form of malignant primary brain tumor and an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years there have been important advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, but this has not translated into significantly improved outcomes for patients. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of isocitrate dehydrogenase wildtype (IDHwt) glioblastomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as targeted molecular therapies, agents targeting DNA damage response and metabolism, immunotherapies, and viral therapies will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

2046 Background: Vorinostat (VOR) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that represents a rational targeted agent in GBM treatment. Given its single-agent activity in recurrent disease (Galanis,et al, 2009) and radiosensitizing properties, this phase I/II trial was designed to test the addition of VOR to standard chemoradiation in newly diagnosed GBM patients (pts): the phase I portion of the trial is the focus of this report. Methods: A standard cohorts of three design was used to assess the safety of VOR in combination with RT and concomitant TMZ and establish the phase II dose of the combination. VOR was given orally days 1 - 5 every wk beginning with the first dose of RT (total dose 60 Gy) and (75mg/m²/day). Following a 4 - 6 week rest, pts received up to 12 cycles of standard adjuvant TMZ in combination with VOR on days 1-7 and 15 – 21 of each cycle; dose was based on NABTT trial 04-03 (Lee, et al, 2012). Results: The phase I component is complete with 15 pts, 12 pts at dose level 0 (VOR 300 mg/day days 1 - 5, weekly x 6 wks), and 3 pts at dose level 1 (VOR 400 mg/day, days 1 – 5 weekly x 6 wks) in combination with RT/TMZ. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in dose level 1 included grade 3 fatigue in 2 pts, grade 3 wound dehiscence in 1 pt, and grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in 1 pt. In dose level 0, 1/6 pts had DLT (gr 3 dyspnea). An MTD expansion cohort of 6 additional patients was added to dose level 0; one patient experienced grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 fatigue, and 1 patient experienced grade 3 febrile neutropenia. In the 12 pts treated in the phase II dose, most common toxicities were hematologic, including lymphopenia (gr 3/4 in 66.7%), thrombocytopenia (gr 3 in 16.7%, gr 4 in 16.7%) and neutropenia (gr 3 in 16.7%, gr 4 in 8.3%). Grade 3 fatigue was observed in 8.3% of the pts. Conclusions: MTD for VOR in combination with TMZ/RT in newly diagnosed GBM patients is 300 mg/d, days 1 - 5 weekly during RT. Toxicity was primarily hematologic. This dose was used in the recently completed phase II trial of the combination (110 pts). RNA expression profiling in patient samples is in process to assess vorinostat responsive signatures observed in preclinical models. Clinical trial information: NCT00731731.

2039 Background: Vorinostat (V) is an oral inhibitor of histone deacetylase. In preclinical studies it inhibits growth of glioblastoma (GBM) cell lines and has supra-additive activity when combined with TMZ. Methods: The North American Brain Tumor Consortium (NABTC) is conducting a phase I study of V in combination with TMZ in patients with malignant gliomas (MG). Eligibility criteria are histologically proven GBM and anaplastic gliomas (AG) who have received radiotherapy and have not progressed on temozolomide, > 18 yrs old, life expectancy > 8 weeks, KPS > 60, adequate bone marrow reserve and organ function. There was no limitation to the type of antiepileptic drugs that could be used. All patients received TMZ at a dose of 150 mg/m2/day on days 1–5 days every 28 days. Variable doses of V were administered with food on days 1–14 every 28 days. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), determined during the first 4 weeks of therapy, were defined as any grade 4 hematologic toxicity except for grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and any grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities. Escalation was performed in standard groups of 3. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as the dose at which DLTs occurred in no more than 1/6 patients. PKs were determined on cycle 1 for TMZ, V and its metabolites. Results: To date, 19 eligible patients have been enrolled (15 GBM; 4 AG). Patients’ characteristics are 11 male, 8 female; median age 54 yrs (36–78); median KPS 90 (70–100). DLTs were encountered at 300 mg bid of vorinostat (1 grade 3 thrombocytopenia; 1 grade 3 fatigue in 3 patients), 200 mg tid (1 grade 3 nausea, 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 3 patients) and 200 mg twice daily (grade 3 fatigue in 2/6 patients). No DLTs were encountered in 6 patients receiving 300 mg daily. TMZ PKs included [n=16: Cmax 5.2 (± 1.55) μg/ml; AUC 20.1 (±4.66) μg x hr/ml; t1/2 1.9 (±0.32)/hr]. Vorinostat PKs (300mg dose level) were [n=4; Cmax 267 (±174) ng/ml; AUC0–8 603 (±197) ng x hr/ml]. The t1/2 for V and its glucuronide metabolite were identical (1.6 hrs) vs. 5.6 hrs for the acid metabolite. Conclusions: The MTD of vorinostat in combination with TMZ is 300 mg daily on days 1–14 every 28 days. Final PK results, and toxicities from an additional 10 patients enrolled at the MTD will be presented. [Table: see text]

AbstractA recent meeting was held on March 22, 2019, among the FDA, clinical scientists, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocacy groups to discuss challenges and potential solutions for increasing development of therapeutics for central nervous system metastases. A key issue identified at this meeting was the need for consistent tumor measurement for reliable tumor response assessment, including the first step of standardized image acquisition with an MRI protocol that could be implemented in multicenter studies aimed at testing new therapeutics. This document builds upon previous consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) in high-grade gliomas and defines a protocol for brain metastases (BTIP-BM) that addresses unique challenges associated with assessment of CNS metastases. The “minimum standard” recommended pulse sequences include: (i) parameter matched pre- and post-contrast inversion recovery (IR)–prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (IR-GRE); (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo acquired after injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent and before post-contrast 3D T1-weighted images; (iii) axial 2D or 3D T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery; (iv) axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images; and (v) post-contrast 2D T1-weighted spin echo images for increased lesion conspicuity. Recommended sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5T and 3T MR systems. An “ideal” protocol is also provided, which replaces IR-GRE with 3D TSE T1-weighted imaging pre- and post-gadolinium, and is best performed at 3T, for which dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion is included. Recommended perfusion parameters are given.

AbstractBuilding on an initiative to enhance clinical trial participation involving the Society for Neuro-Oncology, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners, we evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria and trial conduct on neuro-oncology clinical trial participation. Clinical trials often carry forward eligibility criteria from prior studies that may be overly restrictive and unnecessary and needlessly limit patient accrual. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be evaluated based on the goals and design of the study and whether they impact patient safety and/or treatment efficacy. In addition, we evaluate clinical trial conduct as a barrier to accrual and discuss strategies to minimize such barriers for neuro-oncology trials.

Abstract BACKGROUND A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. METHODS We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. RESULTS We described selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. We focused on patient and community factors, disparities, physician and provider factors, clinical trial factors, and site and organizational factors CONCLUSIONS We will implement strategies with the intent to double accrual to neuro-oncology trials over the next 5 years.

AbstractAccurate pathologic diagnoses and molecularly informed treatment decisions for a wide variety of cancers depend on robust clinical molecular testing that uses genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic-based tools. Nowhere is this more essential than in the workup of brain tumors, as emphasized by the incorporation of molecular criteria into the 2016 World Health Organization classification of central nervous system tumors and the updated official guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Despite the medical necessity of molecular testing in brain tumors, access to and utilization of molecular diagnostics is still highly variable across institutions, and a lack of reimbursement for such testing remains a significant obstacle. The objectives of this review are (i) to identify barriers to adoption of molecular testing in brain tumors, (ii) to describe the current molecular tools recommended for the clinical evaluation of brain tumors, and (iii) to summarize how molecular data are interpreted to guide clinical care, so as to improve understanding and justification for their coverage in the routine workup of adult and pediatric brain tumor cases.

Abstract Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.

2024 Background: A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. Methods: We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. Results: We describe selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. Conclusions: We will implement strategies with the intent to double trial accrual over the next 5 years. [Table: see text]