So what I'm stressed? A qualitative study examininga caregivers' reactions to emerging biomarkers of stress.

Background: Caregivers of adults with cancer often report significant distress yet remain difficult to engage in supportive services. While the field of Psychosomatic Medicine has continued to identify important markers of physiologic stress, and demonstrated disruption in these markers in caregiver populations, no research has investigated whether biomarker information on caregivers' reaction to stress could impact their willingness to address their ongoing distress. Methods: Here, we report on a qualitative study (N = 17) in which we conducted individual interviews with cancer caregivers to explore their key attitudes towards, and subjective experience of, mock stress biomarker data. A total of 17 caregivers of patients (M age = 56.1 years; SD = 12.3) with primarily metastatic brain tumors (glioblastoma) were interviewed regarding four commercially available biomarkers (telomere length; hair cortisol, activity levels and heart rate variability). Once presented with information about stress biomarkers, caregivers were asked to discuss their subjective reaction as if it was their own data as well as their motivation and willingness to seek support after receiving such information. We identified and extracted relevant themes. Results: Analysis utilizing the framework method revealed four emerging themes. The first theme described caregivers' ability to manage stress and willingness to engage with supportive services. Second, caregivers generally accepted the biomarker data but preferred it to be presented in a specific way. The third theme demonstrated that for some, biomarker data may actually increase their subjective distress (e.g., whether or not something could be done to improve their mental state). The last theme described how biomarkers were generally received as meaningful motivators that could increase caregivers' willingness to engage with supportive services. Conclusions: In addition to the more general identified theme of CG's willingness to engage with additional support, we gained insights into caregivers' reaction to the stress biomarkers presented. Findings will set the stage for the utility of stress biomarker information and whether it influences cancer caregivers' willingness to address their distress and motivation to engage in supportive services.

Activity of PD-1 blockade with nivolumab among patients with recurrent atypical/anaplastic meningioma: phase II trial results.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) contributes to tumor immunosuppression and is upregulated in aggressive meningiomas. We performed a phase II study of nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blocking antibody among patients with grade ≥2 meningioma that recurred after surgery and radiation therapy. METHODS: Twenty-five patients received nivolumab (240 mg biweekly) until progression, voluntary withdrawal, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) and quantification of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) were evaluated as potential immunocorrelative biomarkers. Change in neurologic function was prospectively assessed using the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale. RESULTS: Enrolled patients had multiple recurrences including ≥3 prior surgeries and ≥2 prior courses of radiation in 60% and 72%, respectively. Nivolumab was well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. Six-month progression-free survival (PFS-6) rate was 42.4% (95% CI: 22.8, 60.7) and the median OS was 30.9 months (95% CI: 17.6, NA). One patient achieved radiographic response (ongoing at 4.5 years). TMB was >10/Mb in 2 of 15 profiled tumors (13.3%). Baseline TIL density was low but increased posttreatment in 3 patients including both patients with elevated TMB. Most patients who achieved PFS-6 maintained neurologic function prior to progression as assessed by NANO. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab was well tolerated but failed to improve PFS-6, although a subset of patients appeared to derive benefit. Low levels of TMB and TIL density were typically observed. NANO assessment of neurologic function contributed to outcome assessment. Future studies may consider rationally designed combinatorial regimens.

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.

Approved Treatments for Patients with Recurrent High-grade Gliomas.

OBJECTIVES: To review the existing glioma literature and National Comprehensive Cancer Network current standard-of care guidelines for recurrent high-grade glioma, which includes surgery, radiation, and systemic therapies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MedlinePlus, Science Direct, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Google Scholar were searched. Key words for databases were high-grade glioma, glioblastoma, recurrent, surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy. CONCLUSION: Approved treatments for patients with recurrent high-grade glioma are limited and do not significantly impact progression-free survival rates, nor do they offer long-term benefit in symptom improvement or quality of life. Particular consideration for progression versus pseudoprogression should be evaluated before pursuing recurrent therapies. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Given the limited availability of standard-of-care treatments, clinical trials should be prioritized to maximize future treatment options. Individual performance status, genetic and molecular profiles, as well as goals of care and quality of life are important considerations in the context of treatment plans.

Phase I and Biomarker Study of Plerixafor and Bevacizumab in Recurrent High-Grade Glioma.

Purpose: Although antiangiogenic therapy for high-grade glioma (HGG) is promising, responses are not durable. Correlative clinical studies suggest that the SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis may mediate resistance to VEGFR inhibition. Preclinical data have demonstrated that plerixafor (a reversible CXCR4 inhibitor) could inhibit glioma progression after anti-VEGF pathway inhibition. We conducted a phase I study to determine the safety of plerixafor and bevacizumab in recurrent HGG.Patients and Methods: Part 1 enrolled 23 patients with a 3 × 3 dose escalation design to a maximum planned dose of plerixafor 320 µg/kg subcutaneously on days 1 to 21 and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic analyses. Plasma and cellular biomarkers were evaluated before and after treatment. Part 2 enrolled 3 patients and was a surgical study to determine plerixafor's penetration in tumor tissue.Results: In Part 1, no dose-limiting toxicities were seen at the maximum planned dose of plerixafor + bevacizumab. Treatment was well tolerated. After plerixafor 320 µg/kg treatment, the average CSF drug concentration was 26.8 ± 19.6 ng/mL. Plerixafor concentration in resected tumor tissue from patients pretreated with plerixafor was 10 to 12 µg/g. Circulating biomarker data indicated that plerixafor + bevacizumab induces rapid and persistent increases in plasma SDF-1α and placental growth factor. Progression-free survival correlated with pretreatment plasma soluble mesenchymal-epithelial transition receptor and sVEGFR1, and overall survival with the change during treatment in CD34+ progenitor/stem cells and CD8 T cells.Conclusions: Plerixafor + bevacizumab was well tolerated in HGG patients. Plerixafor distributed to both the CSF and brain tumor tissue, and treatment was associated with biomarker changes consistent with VEGF and CXCR4 inhibition. Clin Cancer Res; 24(19); 4643-9. ©2018 AACR.

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.