Citations

PURPOSE GBM AGILE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03970447 ) is a phase II/III Bayesian adaptive platform registration trial testing multiple arms against a common control; the primary end point is overall survival (OS). Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, showed OS benefit in recurrent (RD) glioblastoma in the phase II REGOMA trial and entered GBM AGILE as the first investigational arm. METHODS Patient subtypes included in the regorafenib arm of GBM AGILE were newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and RD glioblastoma. Prospective defined sets of subtypes, or arm signatures, were NDU, RD, and all (NDU + RD). As the first investigational arm in GBM AGILE, regorafenib was equally randomized to the control arm. Treatment in the control arm is temozolomide + radiotherapy (in newly diagnosed) or lomustine (in RD). Efficacy was assessed by OS hazard ratio (HR), arm/control, and demonstrated when the Bayesian probability of benefit (HR <1.00) was ≥98%. Analysis was performed monthly for limited efficacy, which occurs when the Bayesian predictive power is <25% for all signatures, and determines stopping enrollment. Follow-up continued for 12 months after accrual stopped. RESULTS When the predictive power was <25% in all predefined signatures for regorafenib, accrual stopped for limited efficacy. The final analysis did not demonstrate OS improvement in the regorafenib arm in RD nor NDU glioblastoma. Median HRs were 1.05 (NDU), 1.07 (RD), and 1.07 (all) with final probabilities of benefit (HR <1.00) of 0.421 (NDU), 0.312 (RD), and 0.296 (all). Regorafenib was associated with increased toxicity relative to control. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE did not show superiority of regorafenib over control in RD (lomustine) or NDU (temozolomide + radiotherapy) glioblastoma, yet caused increased toxicities. Regorafenib has been removed from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for RD.

PURPOSE STELLAR (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02796261 ) was a phase III, randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy in patients with recurrent grade 3 astrocytoma. METHODS At trial initiation, eligibility criteria included: age ≥18 years, anaplastic astrocytoma (2016 WHO CNS Tumor classification [WHO CNS4]), first recurrence ≥6 months after radiation and temozolomide (TMZ), Karnofsky performance status ≥70, and no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) mutation, age, resection extent, and geography. Patients received eflornithine (2.8 g/m 2 orally, every 8 hours [2 weeks on, 1 week off]) + lomustine (90 mg/m 2 orally, once every 6 weeks), or lomustine monotherapy (110 mg/m 2 once every 6 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Among 343 patients randomly assigned across 74 sites in eight countries, there was no difference in survival between eflornithine + lomustine and lomustine monotherapy (median OS 23.4 v 20.3 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.94). Following changes in classification and grading in the 2021 WHO CNS5, a subset analysis of patients with IDH- mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma (n = 196), defined in 2024, before unblinding, showed clinically meaningful improvements in median OS with eflornithine + lomustine versus lomustine monotherapy (34.9 v 23.5 months, HR, 0.64) and median progression-free survival (PFS, 15.8 v 7.2 months, HR, 0.57). No differences were observed among patients with CNS grade 4 disease. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events of relevance were related to reversible myelosuppression (eflornithine + lomustine 42% v lomustine monotherapy 29% of patients) and hearing impairment (24% v 0%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION Clinically meaningful improvements were observed; eflornithine + lomustine doubled PFS and improved OS in patients with recurrent IDH -mutant, grade 3 astrocytoma, but not grade 4 tumors, after prior radiotherapy and TMZ, consistent with its cytostatic mechanism of action.

Abstract BACKGROUND STELLAR was a phase III randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine (ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor) with lomustine versus lomustine alone in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA). We previously reported an overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of the combination in the patients with grade 3 IDH-mutant astrocytoma. Here we report updated OS and PFS outcomes based on additional molecular classification and blinded independent central review (BICR). METHOD Eligibility included: age ≥ 18 years, AA (2016 WHO criteria) with first recurrence ≥ 6 months after radiation, KPS ≥ 70, and no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Patients received eflornithine (2.8 g/m2 TID Q 2/3 weeks) with lomustine (90 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) (Arm A) or lomustine alone (110 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) (Arm B). Primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS Updated molecular data resulted in re-classification of the 343 AA patients enrolled into 3 WHO 2021 defined tumor subtypes, 196 tumors were IDHmut, CDKN2A/B intact, consistent with diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 3, 33 tumors had CDKN2A/B loss consistent with astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 4, 106 tumors were IDHwt consistent with diagnosis of glioblastoma, IDHwt, WHO grade 4. Updated results strengthen initial conclusion that eflornithine plus lomustine resulted in significant survival benefit in the astrocytoma, IDHmut, WHO grade 3 group (mOS 34.9 vs, 23.5 months, HR = 0.64, stratified log rank p =0.0136). PFS with eflornithine was also improved (15.8 vs, 7.2 months, HR = 0.57, stratified log rank p =0.0113). BICR demonstrated a high correlation between investigator and centrally determined PFS (p=0.0305), and high correlation between OS and PFS (p=.0001). CONCLUSION The clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits observed with eflornithine in the molecularly defined 2021 WHO CNS grade 3 astrocytomas is further confirmed and expanded based on additional molecular classification and BICR of PFS.

Abstract Glioblastoma is the most common type of malignant primary brain tumor and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In 2021, the World Health Organization updated the classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors to restrict glioblastomas to isocitrate dehydrogenase-wildtype (IDHwt) tumors, improving understanding of the prognosis and optimal therapy for these tumors. This revision also enables more homogeneous populations of patients to be enrolled in clinical trials, facilitating the evaluation of novel therapies. In this updated consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of patients with glioblastoma is discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as immunotherapies, viral therapies, targeted molecular therapies, theranostics, and antibody–drug conjugates will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Abstract BACKGROUND Recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA), a grade 3 brain cancer, remains an unmet medical need. STELLAR was a phase III randomized, open-label trial of eflornithine (ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor) with lomustine versus lomustine alone, originally for patients with recurrent AA. However, as the WHO definition of AA evolved during trial conduct (e.g., excluding IDH wild-type disease), we determined results in both the original ITT population and by revised molecularly defined WHO 2021 diagnoses in pre-planned analyses. METHOD Key eligibility: age ≥ 18, AA (2016 WHO criteria), first recurrence ≥ 6 months after radiation and temozolomide, KPS ≥ 70, no imaging findings consistent with grade 4 glioblastoma. Stratification: IDH, age, resection extent, and geography. Patients were randomized to Arm A: eflornithine (2.8 g/m2 TID Q 2/3 weeks) with lomustine (90 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks) or Arm B: lomustine (110 mg/m2 Q 6 weeks). Primary endpoint was OS. The pre-specified hazard ratio (HR) goal was 0.667 based on projected median OS (mOS) increase to 18 months from 12 months. RESULTS 343 pts (172/171 Arms A/B) were randomized (105 sites, 8 countries). ITT analysis found no difference between arms (mOS 23.4 vs. 20.3 months, HR = 0.94). However, a pre-specified subset analysis in IDH mutant, 2021 WHO-defined grade 3 astrocytoma (n=194), showed significant improvement with eflornithine (mOS 34.9 vs. 23.5 months, HR = 0.64, log rank p = 0.016) and PFS (15.8 vs. 7.2 months, HR = 0.58, log rank p = 0.015). No difference was observed in the IDH wild-type subset. AEs were consistent with historic data. CONCLUSION There was no difference in OS between arms in the ITT analysis. However, medically meaningful and statistically significant OS and PFS benefits were observed with eflornithine in the pre-planned analysis of patients with molecularly defined 2021 WHO CNS grade 3 astrocytoma.

Abstract GBM AGILE(NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies against a common control. Paxalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, is the 3rd arm in the trial to conclude evaluation. METHODS Paxalisib was open to patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and recurrent (RD) glioblastoma, with three possible signatures: NDU, RD, and All(NDU+RD). Arm enrollment occurred Dec2020 through May2022. Control patients were enrolled from study initiation (July2019) and were treated with temozolomide(NDU) or lomustine(RD). GBM AGILE investigational arms have 1 or 2 stages, with adaptive randomization in stage 1 and fixed randomization if arms continue to stage 2. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio(HR) of Arm/Control. Efficacy goal is final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR&lt;1.00 in combined Stages. An Arm continues to Stage 2 if Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8. An Arm stops accruing in Stage 1 if it reaches maximal sample size(N) or does not meet a minimum efficacy threshold (PP&lt;0.25 for all signatures when N&gt;50). Clinical cut-off is 12 months after accrual stops. The maximum N for paxalisib was approximately 150(Stage 1) and 50(Stage 2). RESULTS After paxalisib reached &gt;150 patients in Stage 1, accrual stopped [Paxalisib/control N 54/75(NDU), 100/188(RD)]. Neither PP thresholds for moving to Stage 2 nor stopping for minimum efficacy were met. Following an unplanned public disclosure that the arm did not continue to stage 2, clinical cut-off for final analysis (planned May2023) was updated to public disclosure date (August2022). At final analysis mean HRs were 0.89(NDU), 1.25(RD), 1.05(All), probabilities of HR&lt;1.00 of 0.72(NDU), 0.076(RD), 0.398(All). Model estimated median OS paxalisib/control (months) were 14.77/13.84(NDU) and 8.58/10.06(RD). CONCLUSION Paxalisib did not show survival benefit over cumulative control in final primary analysis; additional secondary analyses are being considered. GBM AGILE continues to rapidly and efficiently assess therapies in ND and RD glioblastoma.

Abstract RTOG 9402 demonstrated procarbazine (P), lomustine (CCNU/C), and vincristine (V), collectively PCV, added to radiation therapy significantly improved survival for patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. The improvement was most pronounced in 1p19q codeleted cases, and to a lesser extent, IDH-mutant cases, with no survival benefit in cases with neither biomarker. Analogous results were observed in other phase III trials. However, vincristine (V) can cause substantial toxicity and requires intravenous administration, both negatively affecting quality of life, with debatable contribution to PCV efficacy. As a randomized trial comparing PCV to PC is unlikely to be conducted, we explored correlations between survival and V-dosing in patients randomized to PCV in RTOG 9402. We performed post-hoc analyses of all evaluable participants (n = 143) randomized to PCV on RTOG 9402, supplemented by restricting the analyses to the chemosensitive molecular subsets (IDH-mutant and/or 1p/19q codeleted, n = 118). Total V dose by quartile (Q) was calculated. Survival from six months post-randomization was compared among V dose groups, adjusting for age, extent of resection (EOR), and Karnofsky Performances Status (KPS) in a Cox proportional hazards model. Higher V dose received correlated with longer survival in multivariate analyses (n = 134, median-Q3 vs. &lt; Q1, HR 0.40 (0.22, 0.73), p = 0.003; ≥Q3 vs. &lt; Q1, HR 0.39 (0.22, 0.72), p = 0.002). Excluding chemoresistant cases (IDH wild-type/not codeleted), survival was also significantly longer in evaluable participants receiving the highest doses of vincristine (≥Q3 vs. &lt; Q1 HR 0.42 (0.21,0.81), p = 0.01). In this post-hoc analysis, higher overall V-dose received correlated with longer survival in evaluable patients with anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors receiving PCV chemotherapy in RTOG 9402. Of note, as vincristine dosing was not assigned by randomization, confounding due to differences in patient characteristics among V dose groups cannot be ruled out. Caution should be exercised when considering discarding V from the PCV regimen.

PURPOSE The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time, some limitations of these criteria were identified, and challenges emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. METHODS Informed by data from studies evaluating the different criteria, updates to the RANO criteria are proposed (RANO 2.0). RESULTS We recommend a standard set of criteria for both high- and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the postradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than the postsurgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for comparison with subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks after radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, are required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for the evaluation of treatment for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (two-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type glioblastoma, the nonenhancing disease will no longer be evaluated except when assessing response to antiangiogenic agents. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant nonenhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and nonenhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION The revised RANO 2.0 criteria refine response assessment in gliomas.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, the RANO working group developed updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). RESULTS Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION These criteria represent a work in progress that will hopefully improve the assessment of response in glioma trials. Future updates will incorporate novel developments, advanced imaging techniques, and endpoints as they become validated.

Abstract The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve the reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, we propose updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment.