Phase II trial of ponatinib in patients with bevacizumab-refractory glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Responses to bevacizumab in glioblastoma (GBM) are not durable. Plasma levels of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) increase at the time of tumor progression. By targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor, Src, and FGF receptor pathways, ponatinib may potentially help to overcome some of the putative mechanisms of adaptive resistance. METHODS: We performed a phase II trial of ponatinib in patients with bevacizumab-refractory GBM and variants. Adult patients with Karnofsky performance score (KPS) ≥60, measurable disease, and normal organ and marrow function received 45 mg ponatinib daily. No limit on the number of prior therapies but only one prior bevacizumab-containing regimen was allowed. Primary endpoint was 3-month progression-free survival. Plasma biomarkers of angiogenesis and inflammation were evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: The study closed after the first stage. Fifteen patients enrolled: median age 61 [27-74]; median KPS 80 [70-90]; median number of prior relapses 2 [2-4]. Three-month progression-free survival rate was 0, median overall survival was 98 days [95% CI 56, 257], and median PFS was 28 days [95% CI 27, 30]. No responses were seen. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events included fatigue (n = 3), hypertension (2), and lipase elevation (2). Ponatinib treatment significantly increased plasma VEGF, soluble (s)VEGFR1, sVEGFR2, sTIE2, interferon gamma (IFNγ), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-10 and decreased sVEGFR2. CONCLUSIONS: Ponatinib was associated with minimal activity in bevacizumab-refractory GBM patients. Circulating biomarker data confirmed pharmacodynamic changes and suggested that resistance to ponatinib may be related to an increase in inflammatory cytokines.

Community-Designed Messaging Interventions to Improve Cost-of-Care Conversations in Settings Serving Low-Income, Latino Populations.

Background: Little is known about how to promote cost-of-care conversations in health care settings. Objective: To develop and evaluate community-designed messages promoting cost-of-care conversations. Design: Focus groups and point-of-care surveys. Setting: Three pediatric clinics, a family community health clinic, and a community health worker (promotora) program serving predominately low-income, Latino populations in Adams County, Colorado. Participants: Focus groups included staff (n = 22) and patients or community members (n = 15). At baseline, 107 patients and 9 providers completed surveys, and 111 patients and 11 providers did so postintervention. Intervention: Setting-specific, community-designed messages about cost-of-care conversations delivered to patients on fliers. Measurements: Qualitative themes about the frequency and nature of cost-of-care conversations, and frequencies of patient- and provider-reported cost-of-care conversations before and after the intervention. Results: Five themes emerged from the focus groups, and the groups reported more discussion of costs after distribution of the messaging interventions than before in the clinical but not the community setting. Lack of transparent pricing tools was a barrier, and consideration of incidental costs was important. In cross-sectional, point-of-care surveys, fewer patients reported talking about costs with providers at baseline (44.4%) than after the messaging intervention (73.7%). Providers reported similar frequency of talking about costs with patients before (41.0%) and after (44.9%) the intervention. Nearly one third of patient and provider reports were discordant regarding whether costs were discussed. Limitations: The response rate was low, cost-of-care conversations were self-reported, generalizability of the findings to other settings is uncertain, and the sample was small. The survey proved infeasible in the promotora setting. Conclusion: Participants reported some favorable perceptions of cost-of-care conversations after implementation of community-designed messages, suggesting promise for this approach to promoting conversations about costs of care in settings serving low-income, uninsured Latino populations. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Cost savings associated with an alternative payment model for integrating behavioral health in primary care.

Financially supporting and sustaining behavioral health services integrated into primary care settings remains a major barrier to widespread implementation. Sustaining Healthcare Across Integrated Primary Care Efforts (SHAPE) was a demonstration project designed to prospectively examine the cost savings associated with utilizing an alternative payment methodology to support behavioral health services in primary care practices with integrated behavioral health services. Six primary care practices in Colorado participated in this project. Each practice had at least one on-site behavioral health clinician providing integrated behavioral health services. Three practices received non-fee-for-service payments (i.e., SHAPE payment) to support provision of behavioral health services for 18 months. Three practices did not receive the SHAPE payment and served as control practices for comparison purposes. Assignment to condition was nonrandom. Patient claims data were collected for 9 months before the start of the SHAPE demonstration project (pre-period) and for 18 months during the SHAPE project (post-period) to evaluate cost savings. During the 18-month post-period, analysis of the practices' claims data demonstrated that practices receiving the SHAPE payment generated approximately $1.08 million in net cost savings for their public payer population (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, and Dual Eligible; N = 9,042). The cost savings were primarily achieved through reduction in downstream utilization (e.g., hospitalizations). The SHAPE demonstration project found that non-fee-for-service payments for behavioral health integrated into primary care may be associated with significant cost savings for public payers, which could have implications on future delivery and payment work in public programs (e.g., Medicaid).

Using Social Network Analysis to Examine the Effect of Care Management Structure on Chronic Disease Management Communication Within Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Care management and care managers are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care medical practice as a means of improving population health and reducing unnecessary care. Care managers are often involved in chronic disease management and associated transitional care. In this study, we examined the communication regarding chronic disease care within 24 primary care practices in Michigan and Colorado. We sought to answer the following questions: Do care managers play a key role in chronic disease management in the practice? Does the prominence of the care manager's connectivity within the practice's communication network vary by the type of care management structure implemented? METHODS: Individual written surveys were given to all practice members in the participating practices. Survey questions assessed demographics as well as practice culture, quality improvement, care management activities, and communication regarding chronic disease care. Using social network analysis and other statistical methods, we analyzed the communication dynamics related to chronic disease care for each practice. RESULTS: The structure of chronic disease communication varies greatly from practice to practice. Care managers who were embedded in the practice or co-located were more likely to be in the core of the communication network than were off-site care managers. These care managers also had higher in-degree centrality, indicating that they acted as a hub for communication with team members in many other roles. DISCUSSION: Social network analysis provided a useful means of examining chronic disease communication in practice, and highlighted the central role of care managers in this communication when their role structure supported such communication. Structuring care managers as embedded team members within the practice has important implications for their role in chronic disease communication within primary care.

A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial of armodafinil for fatigue in patients with gliomas undergoing radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is common among glioma patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) and impacts quality of life (QOL). We evaluated whether armodafinil, a wakefulness-promoting medication, improves fatigue in glioma patients undergoing RT. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included age ≥18 years, Karnofsky performance status ≥60, and grade 2-4 glioma undergoing RT to a total dose of 50-60 Gy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to armodafinil or placebo for 8 weeks beginning within 10 days of starting RT. Fatigue and QOL were assessed at baseline, day 22, day 43, and day 56 with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), and the Cancer Fatigue Scale (CFS). The primary aim was to detect a difference in the 42-day change in FACIT-F fatigue subscale between the 2 groups using a 2-sample Wilcoxon statistic. RESULTS: We enrolled 81 patients total (42 armodafinil and 39 placebo). Armodafinil did not significantly improve fatigue or QOL based on the 42-day change in FACIT-F fatigue subscale, FACT-G, CFS, or BFI. Further analysis suggests no difference between the arms even after accounting for the potential bias of missing data. Treatment was well tolerated with few grade 3 or 4 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: While treatment was well-tolerated, an 8-week course of armodafinil did not improve fatigue or QOL in glioma patients undergoing RT in this pilot study. Further studies are needed to determine whether pharmacologic treatment improves fatigue in glioma patients undergoing RT.

Clinical implementation of integrated whole-genome copy number and mutation profiling for glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Multidimensional genotyping of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has the potential to improve diagnostics and clinical trials for brain tumors, but prospective use in the clinical setting is not yet routine. We report our experience with implementing a multiplexed copy number and mutation-testing program in a diagnostic laboratory certified by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. METHODS: We collected and analyzed clinical testing results from whole-genome array comparative genomic hybridization (OncoCopy) of 420 brain tumors, including 148 glioblastomas. Mass spectrometry-based mutation genotyping (OncoMap, 471 mutations) was performed on 86 glioblastomas. RESULTS: OncoCopy was successful in 99% of samples for which sufficient DNA was obtained (n = 415). All clinically relevant loci for glioblastomas were detected, including amplifications (EGFR, PDGFRA, MET) and deletions (EGFRvIII, PTEN, 1p/19q). Glioblastoma patients ≤40 years old had distinct profiles compared with patients >40 years. OncoMap testing reliably identified mutations in IDH1, TP53, and PTEN. Seventy-seven glioblastoma patients enrolled on trials, of whom 51% participated in targeted therapeutic trials where multiplex data informed eligibility or outcomes. Data integration identified patients with complete tumor suppressor inactivation, albeit rarely (5% of patients) due to lack of whole-gene coverage in OncoMap. CONCLUSIONS: Combined use of multiplexed copy number and mutation detection from FFPE samples in the clinical setting can efficiently replace singleton tests for clinical diagnosis and prognosis in most settings. Our results support incorporation of these assays into clinical trials as integral biomarkers and their potential to impact interpretation of results. Limited tumor suppressor variant capture by targeted genotyping highlights the need for whole-gene sequencing in glioblastoma.

Phase II trial of triple tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor nintedanib in recurrent high-grade gliomas.

Bevacizumab is FDA-approved for patients with recurrent GBM. However, the median duration of response is only 4 months. Potential mechanisms of resistance include upregulated FGF signaling and increased PDGF-mediated pericyte coverage. Nintedanib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of PDGFR α/ß, FGFR 1-3, and VEGFR 1-3 that may overcome resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. This was a two-stage phase II trial in adults with first or second recurrence of GBM, stratified by prior bevacizumab therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01380782; 1199.94). The primary endpoint was PFS6 in the bevacizumab-naive arm (Arm A) and PFS3 in the post-bevacizumab arm (Arm B). Up to 10 anaplastic glioma (AG) patients were accrued to each arm in exploratory cohorts. Twenty-two patients enrolled in Arm A and 14 in Arm B. Arm A included 12 GBMs (55 %), 13 patients with one prior regimen (59 %), and median age 54 years (range 28-75). Arm B included 10 GBMs (71 %), one patient with one prior regimen (7 %), and median age 52 years (range 32-70). Median KPS overall was 90 (range 60-100). There were no responses. In Arm A (GBM only), PFS6 was 0 %, median PFS 28 days (95 % CI 27-83), and median OS 6.9 months (3.7-8.1). In Arm B (GBM only), PFS3 was 0 %, median PFS 28 days (22-28), and median OS 2.6 months (1.0-6.9). Among AG patients in each arm, PFS6 was 0 %. Treatment was well tolerated. In conclusion, nintedanib is not active against recurrent high-grade glioma, regardless of prior bevacizumab therapy.

Retrospective study of carmustine or lomustine with bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma patients who have failed prior bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no known effective treatments for recurrent glioblastoma once patients have progressed on a bevacizumab-containing regimen. We examined the efficacy of adding nitrosoureas to bevacizumab in patients who progressed while on an initial bevacizumab-containing regimen. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified adult patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma (WHO grade IV) who were treated with lomustine or carmustine in combination with bevacizumab as a second or third regimen after failing an alternative initial bevacizumab-containing regimen. Response rate (RR), 6-month progression free survival (PFS6), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for each treatment. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were identified (28 males) with a median age of 49 years (range, 24-78 y). Of 42 patients, 28 received lomustine (n = 22) or carmustine (n = 6) with bevacizumab as their second bevacizumab-containing regimen, and 14 received lomustine (n = 11) or carmustine (n = 3) as their third bevacizumab-containing regimen. While the median PFS for the initial bevacizumab-containing regimen was 16.3 weeks, the median PFS for the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen was 6.3 weeks. Patients had an RR of 44% and a PFS6 rate of 26% during the initial bevacizumab regimen and an RR of 0% and a PFS6 rate of 3% during the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen. There was increased grade 3-4 toxicity (45% vs 19%, P = .010) during the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen relative to the initial bevacizumab regimen. Median overall survival was 18.7 weeks from initiation of the nitrosourea-containing bevacizumab regimen. CONCLUSION: The addition of lomustine or carmustine to bevacizumab after a patient has already progressed on a bevacizumab-containing regimen does not appear to provide benefit for most patients and is associated with additional toxicity with the doses used in this cohort.

Safety of concurrent bevacizumab therapy and anticoagulation in glioma patients.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are common in glioma patients and are typically treated with anticoagulant medications. The anti-angiogenic agent bevacizumab (BVZ) increases the risks of both VTE and hemorrhagic complications. Little is known about the hemorrhagic risk of anticoagulation in glioma patients receiving BVZ. We reviewed medical records from 282 BVZ-treated patients at our center and identified 64 who received concurrent anticoagulant therapy. The risk and severity of hemorrhagic complications were assessed. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the risk of hemorrhage between subjects who received and did not receive anticoagulants. Forty-seven patients (73%) had glioblastoma, 15 (23%) anaplastic glioma, and 2 (3%) other tumors. Thirteen (20%) and 51 (80%) patients received warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparin, respectively. The indication for anticoagulation was deep venous thrombosis in 37 patients (58%), pulmonary embolism in 22 (34%), and both in 5 (8%). Thirteen patients (20%) experienced hemorrhage, of which four hemorrhages (6%) were serious (grade ≥ 3): one patient had grade 5 intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), one grade 4 ICH, one grade 3 epistaxis, and one grade 3 gastrointestinal hemorrhage. ICH was seen in seven patients (11%), of which five (8%) were grade 1. Among 218 patients who did not receive anticoagulants, there were two (1%) serious hemorrhages (both grade 4 ICH). Both the serious hemorrhage rate and overall ICH rate were higher in patients who received anticoagulants (P = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Anticoagulant use during BVZ therapy may increase the risk of hemorrhage in glioma patients, although it is generally well tolerated.