Glioblastoma in adults: a Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and European Society of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) consensus review on current management and future directions.

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.

NRG/RTOG 1122: A phase 2, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of bevacizumab with and without trebananib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma or gliosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) alone does not improve overall survival (OS) in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). The angiopoiein (Ang)-TIE2 system may play a role in tumor survival under VEGF inhibition. We conducted a phase 2, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab plus trebananib (a novel Fc fusion protein that sequesters Ang1/Ang2) over bevacizumab alone in rGBM. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with a Karnofsky performance status ≥70 and GBM or variants in first or second relapse were randomized to bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus trebananib 15 mg/kg every week or bevacizumab plus placebo. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: After an initial 6-patient lead-in cohort confirmed the safety of combining bevacizumab and trebananib, 115 eligible patients were randomized to the control (n = 58) or experimental treatment (n = 57). In the control arm, 6-month PFS was 41.1%, median survival time was 11.5 months (95% CI, 8.4-14.2 months), median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.8-7.1 months), and radiographic response (RR) was 5.9%. In the experimental arm, 6-month PFS was 22.6%, median survival time was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.8-10.1 months), median PFS was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.7-5.6 months), and RR was 4.2%. The rate of severe toxicities was not significantly different between arms. CONCLUSION: The combination of bevacizumab and trebananib was well tolerated but did not significantly improve 6-month PFS rate, PFS, or OS for patients with rGBM over bevacizumab alone. The shorter PFS in the experimental arm with a hazard ratio of 1.51 (P = .04) suggests that the addition of trebananib to bevacizumab is detrimental.

Profiles of brain metastases: Prioritization of therapeutic targets.

We sought to compare the tumor profiles of brain metastases from common cancers with those of primary tumors and extracranial metastases in order to identify potential targets and prioritize rational treatment strategies. Tumor samples were collected from both the primary and metastatic sites of nonsmall cell lung cancer, breast cancer and melanoma from patients in locations worldwide, and these were submitted to Caris Life Sciences for tumor multiplatform analysis, including gene sequencing (Sanger and next-generation sequencing with a targeted 47-gene panel), protein expression (assayed by immunohistochemistry) and gene amplification (assayed by in situ hybridization). The data analysis considered differential protein expression, gene amplification and mutations among brain metastases, extracranial metastases and primary tumors. The analyzed population included: 16,999 unmatched primary tumor and/or metastasis samples: 8,178 nonsmall cell lung cancers (5,098 primaries; 2,787 systemic metastases; 293 brain metastases), 7,064 breast cancers (3,496 primaries; 3,469 systemic metastases; 99 brain metastases) and 1,757 melanomas (660 primaries; 996 systemic metastases; 101 brain metastases). TOP2A expression was increased in brain metastases from all 3 cancers, and brain metastases overexpressed multiple proteins clustering around functions critical to DNA synthesis and repair and implicated in chemotherapy resistance, including RRM1, TS, ERCC1 and TOPO1. cMET was overexpressed in melanoma brain metastases relative to primary skin specimens. Brain metastasis patients may particularly benefit from therapeutic targeting of enzymes associated with DNA synthesis, replication and/or repair.

Radiographic patterns of progression with associated outcomes after bevacizumab therapy in glioblastoma patients.

Treatment response and survival after bevacizumab failure remains poor in patients with glioblastoma. Several recent publications examining glioblastoma patients treated with bevacizumab have described specific radiographic patterns of disease progression as correlating with outcome. This study aims to scrutinize these previously reported radiographic prognostic models in an independent data set to inspect their reproducibility and potential for clinical utility. Sixty four patients treated at MD Anderson matched predetermined inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized based on previously published data by: (1) Nowosielski et al. into: T2-diffuse, cT1 Flare-up, non-responders and T2 circumscribed groups (2) Modified Pope et al. criteria into: local, diffuse and distant groups and (3) Bahr et al. into groups with or without new diffusion-restricted and/or pre-contrast T1-hyperintense lesions. When classified according to Nowosielski et al. criteria, the cT1 Flare-up group had the longest overall survival (OS) from bevacizumab initiation, with non-responders having the worst outcomes. The T2 diffuse group had the longest progression free survival (PFS) from start of bevacizumab. When classified by modified Pope at al. criteria, most patients did not experience a shift in tumor pattern from the pattern at baseline, while the PFS and OS in patients with local-to-local and local-to-diffuse/distant patterns of progression were similar. Patients developing restricted diffusion on bevacizumab had worse OS. Diffuse patterns of progression in patients treated with bevacizumab are rare and not associated with worse outcomes compared to other radiographic subgroups. Emergence of restricted diffusion during bevacizumab treatment was a radiographic marker of worse OS.

Brain Malignancy Steering Committee clinical trials planning workshop: report from the Targeted Therapies Working Group.

Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain malignancy and is associated with poor prognosis despite aggressive local and systemic therapy, which is related to a paucity of viable treatment options in both the newly diagnosed and recurrent settings. Even so, the rapidly increasing number of targeted therapies being evaluated in oncology clinical trials offers hope for the future. Given the broad range of possibilities for future trials, the Brain Malignancy Steering Committee convened a clinical trials planning meeting that was held at the Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia, on September 19 and 20, 2013. This manuscript reports the deliberations leading up to the event from the Targeted Therapies Working Group and the results of the meeting.

Survival outcome of early versus delayed bevacizumab treatment in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Bevacizumab (BEV) is widely used for treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma. It is not known if there are differences in outcome between early versus delayed BEV treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. We examined the relationship between the time of starting BEV treatment and outcomes in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. In this retrospective chart review, we identified patients with recurrent glioblastoma diagnosed between 2005 and 2011 who were treated with BEV alone or BEV-containing regimens. Data was analyzed to determine overall survival (OS) from time of diagnosis and progression free survival (PFS) from time of starting BEV. A total of 298 patients were identified, 112 patients received early BEV, 133 patients received delayed BEV, and 53 patients were excluded because they either progressed within 3 months of radiation or received BEV at the time of diagnosis. There was no significant difference in PFS between patients that received early BEV and those that received delayed BEV (5.2 vs. 4.3 months, p = 0.2). Patients treated with delayed BEV had longer OS when compared to those treated with early BEV (25.9 vs. 20.8 months, p = 0.005). In patients with recurrent glioblastoma, there was no significant difference in PFS from the time of starting BEV between early and delayed BEV. Although patients treated with delayed BEV seemed to have longer OS, a conclusion regarding OS outcome requires further prospective trials. These results may indicate that delaying treatment with BEV is not detrimental for survival of patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

Integrated phase II/III clinical trials in oncology: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated phase II/III trial designs implement the phase II and phase III aspects of oncology studies into a single trial. Despite a body of literature discussing the merits of integrated phase II/III clinical trial designs within the past two decades, implementation of this design has been limited in oncology studies. PURPOSE: We provide a brief discussion of the potential advantages and disadvantages of integrated phase II/III clinical trial designs in oncology and provide an example of the operating characteristics of a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial. METHODS: We review the differences among proposed integrated phase II/III designs. Then, we illustrate the use of the design in a brain tumor trial to be conducted by the RTOG and examine the impact of association between endpoints on design performance in terms of type I error, power, study duration, and expected sample size. RESULTS: Although integrated phase II/III designs should not be used in all situations, under appropriate conditions, significant gains can be achieved when using integrated phase II/III designs, including smaller sample size, time and resources savings, and shorter study duration. LIMITATIONS: Data submission without delay and sufficient evaluation of intermediate endpoints are assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are potential benefits in using phase II/III designs, there also may be disadvantages. We recommend running design simulations incorporating theoretical and practical issues before implementing an integrated phase II/III design.

Clinical trial end points for high-grade glioma: the evolving landscape.

To review the strengths and weaknesses of primary and auxiliary end points for clinical trials among patients with high-grade glioma (HGG). Recent advances in outcome for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent HGG, coupled with the development of multiple promising therapeutics with myriad antitumor actions, have led to significant growth in the number of clinical trials for patients with HGG. Appropriate clinical trial design and the incorporation of optimal end points are imperative to efficiently and effectively evaluate such agents and continue to advance outcome. Growing recognition of limitations weakening the reliability of traditional clinical trial primary end points has generated increasing uncertainty of how best to evaluate promising therapeutics for patients with HGG. The phenomena of pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse have made imaging-based end points, including overall radiographic response and progression-free survival, problematic. Although overall survival is considered the "gold-standard" end point, recently identified active salvage therapies such as bevacizumab may diminish the association between presalvage therapy and overall survival. Finally, advances in imaging as well as the assessment of patient function and well being have strengthened interest in auxiliary end points assessing these aspects of patient care and outcome. Better appreciation of the strengths and limitations of primary end points will lead to more effective clinical trial strategies. Technical advances in imaging as well as improved survival for patients with HGG support the further development of auxiliary end points evaluating novel imaging approaches as well as measures of patient function and well being.