Search

BackgroundNearly all patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma experience recurrence following standard-of-care radiotherapy (RT) + temozolomide (TMZ). The purpose of the phase III randomized CheckMate 548 study was to evaluate RT + TMZ combined with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) or placebo (PBO) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (NCT02667587).MethodsPatients (N = 716) were randomized 1:1 to NIVO [(240 mg every 2 weeks × 8, then 480 mg every 4 weeks) + RT (60 Gy over 6 weeks) + TMZ (75 mg/m2 once daily during RT, then 150-200 mg/m2 once daily on days 1-5 of every 28-day cycle × 6)] or PBO + RT + TMZ following the same regimen. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients without baseline corticosteroids and in all randomized patients.ResultsAs of December 22, 2020, median (m)PFS (blinded independent central review) was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.9-11.8) with NIVO + RT + TMZ vs 10.3 months (95% CI, 9.7-12.5) with PBO + RT + TMZ (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3) and mOS was 28.9 months (95% CI, 24.4-31.6) vs 32.1 months (95% CI, 29.4-33.8), respectively (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3). In patients without baseline corticosteroids, mOS was 31.3 months (95% CI, 28.6-34.8) with NIVO + RT + TMZ vs 33.0 months (95% CI, 31.0-35.1) with PBO + RT + TMZ (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.4). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 52.4% vs 33.6%, respectively.ConclusionsNIVO added to RT + TMZ did not improve survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated or indeterminate MGMT promoter. No new safety signals were observed.

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.

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.

Building 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.

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.

BackgroundThe prognostic significance of baseline contrast enhancing tumor prior to second- or third-line therapy in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) for overall survival (OS) remains controversial, particularly in the context of repeated surgical resection and/or use of anti-angiogenic therapy. In the current study, we examined recurrent GBM patients from both single and multicenter clinical trials to test whether baseline enhancing tumor volume, including central necrosis, is a significant prognostic factor for OS in recurrent GBM.MethodsIncluded were 497 patients with recurrent GBM from 4 data sources: 2 single-center sites (University of Toronto, University of California Los Angeles) and 2 phase II multicenter trials (AVF3708G, Bevacizumab ± Irinotecan, NCT00345163; XL184-201, Cabozantinib, NCT00704288). T1 subtraction maps were used to define volume of contrast enhancing tumor, including central necrosis. Cox multivariable and univariate analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between tumor volume prior to second- or third-line therapy and OS.ResultsBoth continuous measures of baseline tumor volume and tumors dichotomized into large (≥15cc) and small (

PurposePatients with high-grade gliomas (HGG) are frequently excluded from first-in-human solid tumor trials because of perceived poor prognosis, excessive toxicities, concomitant drug interactions, and poor efficacy. We conducted an analysis of outcomes from select, single-agent phase I studies in patients with HGG. We compared outcomes to pooled analysis of published studies in solid tumors with various molecular and cytotoxic drugs evaluated as single agents or as combinations.Patient and methodsIndividual records of patients with recurrent HGG enrolled onto Adult Brain Tumor Consortium trials of single-agent, cytotoxic or molecular agents from 2000 to 2008 were analyzed for baseline characteristics, toxicities, responses, and survival.ResultsOur analysis included 327 patients with advanced, refractory HGG who were enrolled onto eight trials involving targeted molecular (n=5) and cytotoxic (n=3) therapies. At enrollment, patients had a median Karnofsky performance score of 90 and median age of 52 years; 62% were men, 63% had glioblastoma, and the median number of prior systemic chemotherapies was one. Baseline laboratory values were in an acceptable range to meet eligibility criteria. Patients were on the study for a median of two cycles (range, ConclusionPatients with HGG who meet standard eligibility criteria may be good candidates for solid tumor phase I studies with single-agent molecular or cytotoxic drugs with favorable preclinical rationale and pharmacokinetic properties in this population.

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of pevonedistat, a neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally down‐regulated protein 8 (NEDD8)‐activating enzyme inhibitor, on the heart rate‐corrected QT (QTc) interval in cancer patients. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pevonedistat 25 or 50 mg/m2 on day 1 and the alternate dose on day 8. Triplicate electrocardiograms were collected at intervals over 0–11 hours and at 24 hours via Holter recorders on days −1 (baseline), 1, and 8. Changes from time‐matched baseline values were calculated for QTc by Fridericia (QTcF), PR, and QRS intervals. Serial time‐matched blood samples for analysis of pevonedistat plasma pharmacokinetics were collected and a concentration–QTc analysis conducted. Safety was assessed by monitoring vital signs, physical examinations, and clinical laboratory tests. Forty‐four patients were included in the QTc analysis. Maximum least square (LS) mean increase from time‐matched baseline in QTcF was 3.2 milliseconds at 1 hour postdose for pevonedistat at 25 mg/m2, while the LSs mean change from baseline in QTcF was −1.7 milliseconds 1 hour postdose at 50 mg/m2. The maximum 2‐sided 90% upper confidence bound was 6.7 and 2.9 milliseconds for pevonedistat at 25 and 50 mg/m2, respectively. Pevonedistat did not result in clinically relevant effects on heart rate, nor on PR or QRS intervals. Results from pevonedistat concentration–QTc analysis were consistent with these findings. Administration of pevonedistat to cancer patients at a dose of up to 50 mg/m2 showed no evidence of QT prolongation, indicative of the lack of clinically meaningful effects on cardiac repolarization. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03330106 (first registered on November 6, 2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leukoencephalopathy in the setting of multiple myeloma (MM) is a rare demyelinating condition, with few reported cases in literature. Daratumumab is a CD38 targeted monoclonal antibody that has been widely used for the management of MM. In the absence of central nervous system (CNS) disease, many medication-induced leukoencephalopathy cases reported with MM, including daratumumab-induced, are associated with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) and John Cunningham (JC) virus. Currently, there are no reported cases of daratumumab-induced leukoencephalopathy among patients without CNS involvement or PML. We discuss 2 patients who developed leukoencephalopathy while receiving daratumumab-based therapy without evidence of PML or CNS disease. Both patients had baseline MRIs without significant white matter changes before daratumumab-based therapy. Patients began experiencing neurological deficits about 6 to 8 months after daratumumab-based therapy initiation. One patient passed away before being assessed for improvement of symptoms with daratumumab cessation. The second patient had some stabilization of symptoms after cessation; however, the leukoencephalopathy remained irreversible. As the class of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies expands in MM therapy, we highlight a potential treatment complication and the importance of detecting leukoencephalopathy early among patients receiving anti-CD38 therapy. We recommend vigilant monitoring of any new or worsening neurological symptoms to avoid serious complications of irreversible leukoencephalopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the issue of gender equity in the field of neuro-oncology. It highlights the persistent disparities in compensation and leadership opportunities for women in healthcare, including medicine. The article emphasizes the importance of socially and culturally acceptable healthcare and the role of healthcare professionals in providing such care. It also presents the results of a survey conducted by the European Association of Neuro-Oncology, which explores gender balance and potential actions to promote gender equality in the field. The article concludes by calling for professional organizations to address gender inequity and create diverse and equitable environments in healthcare and academic institutions. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Glioma is a devastating primary tumor of the central nervous system with difficult-to-manage symptoms. Cannabis products have been postulated to potentially benefit glioma patients. Recent state legalization allowed investigators an opportunity to study glioma patients' adoption of medical marijuana (MM). Objective: Our goals were to: (1) determine the prevalence of marijuana use, both through physician recommendation and self-medication, and (2) evaluate its perceived risks and benefits in glioma patients. Design: Self-report data were collected and descriptive analyses were conducted. Setting/Subjects: Participants were adult, English-speaking patients undergoing treatment for primary non-recurrent malignant glioma in neuro-oncology clinics at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Measurements: The survey on MM was adapted from previous research and included questions on knowledge and attitudes toward MM; use, frequency, type, and sourcing of MM; and reasons for use of MM and perceived symptom relief among users. Results: A total of 73 patients were surveyed. The majority of participants were aware that MM was legal in the state, and most reported learning of this through the media. Over 70% of participants reported having considered using MM, and a third reported using marijuana products after their diagnosis. Most received recommendations from friends/family rather than a medical provider, and only half of the users had obtained a physician's recommendation. Users generally reported benefits. Conclusions: With the increasing national conversation that accompanies legalization, glioma patients are pursuing marijuana for the treatment for their symptoms. More research and education is needed to bring health care providers into the conversation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Melanoma frequently metastasizes to the brain, with CNS involvement being clinically evident in ∼30% of patients (as high as 75% at autopsy). In ∼5% cases melanoma cells also metastasize to the leptomeninges, the sub-arachnoid space and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Patients with leptomeningeal melanoma metastases (LMM) have the worst prognosis and are characterized by rapid disease progression (mean survival 8-10 weeks) and a death from neurological causes. The recent years have seen tremendous progress in the development of targeted and immune therapies for melanoma that has translated into an increased survival benefit. Despite these gains, the majority of patients fail therapy and there is a suspicion that the brain and the leptomeninges are a 'sanctuary' sites for melanoma cells that escape both targeted therapy and immunologic therapies. Emerging evidence suggests that (1) Cancer cells migrating to the CNS may have unique molecular properties and (2) the CNS/leptomeningeal microenvironment represents a pro-survival niche that influences therapeutic response. In this Mini-Review, we will outline the clinical course of LMM development and will describe how the intracranial immune and cellular microenvironments offer both opportunities and challenges for the successful management of this disease. We will further discuss the latest data demonstrating the potential use of BRAF inhibitors and immune therapy in the management of LMM, and will review future potential therapeutic strategies for the management of this most devastating complication of advanced melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Glioblastoma, the most common primary brain tumor, has few available therapies providing significant improvement in survival. Molecular signatures associated with tumor aggressiveness as well as with disease progression and their relation to differences in signaling pathways implicated in gliomagenesis have recently been described. A number of biomarkers which have potential in diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of response to therapy have been identified and along with imaging modalities could contribute to the clinical management of GBM. Molecular biomarkers including O(6)-methlyguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) methylation, loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of chromosomes 1p and 19q, loss of heterozygosity 10q, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), epidermal growth factor, latrophilin, and 7 transmembrane domain-containing protein 1 on chromosome 1 (ELTD1), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), tumor suppressor protein p53, phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), p16INK4a gene, cytochrome c oxidase (CcO), phospholipid metabolites, telomerase messenger expression (hTERT messenger ribonucleic acid [mRNA]), microRNAs (miRNAs), cancer stem cell markers and imaging modalities as potential biomarkers are discussed. Inclusion of emerging biomarkers in prospective clinical trials is warranted in an effort for more effective personalized therapy in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway has been implicated in tumor initiation and metastasis across different malignancies. Major mechanisms by which the Hh pathway is aberrantly activated can be attributed to mutations of members of Hh pathway or excessive/inappropriate expression of Hh pathway ligands. The Hh signaling pathway also affects the regulation of cancer stem cells, leading to their capabilities in tumor formation, disease progression, and metastasis. Preliminary results of early phase clinical trials of Hh inhibitors administered as monotherapy demonstrated promising results in patients with basal cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma, but clinically meaningful anticancer efficacy across other tumor types seems to be lacking. Additionally, cases of resistance have been already observed. Mutations of SMO, activation of Hh pathway components downstream to SMO, and upregulation of alternative signaling pathways are possible mechanisms of resistance development. Determination of effective Hh inhibitor-based combination regimens and development of correlative biomarkers relevant to this pathway should remain as clear priorities for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]