Search

PurposeAntiangiogenic therapies are known to cause high radiographic response rates due to reduction in vascular permeability resulting in a lower degree of contrast extravasation. In this study, we investigate the prognostic ability for model-derived parameters describing enhancing tumor volumetric dynamics to predict survival in recurrent glioblastoma treated with antiangiogenic therapy.Experimental designN = 276 patients in two phase II trials were used as training data, including bevacizumab ± irinotecan (NCT00345163) and cabozantinib (NCT00704288), and N = 74 patients in the bevacizumab arm of a phase III trial (NCT02511405) were used for validation. Enhancing volumes were estimated using T1 subtraction maps, and a biexponential model was used to estimate regrowth (g) and regression (d) rates, time to tumor regrowth (TTG), and the depth of response (DpR). Response characteristics were compared to diffusion MR phenotypes previously shown to predict survival.ResultsOptimized thresholds occurred at g = 0.07 months-1 (phase II: HR = 0.2579, P = 5 × 10-20; phase III: HR = 0.2197, P = 5 × 10-5); d = 0.11 months-1 (HR = 0.3365, P < 0.0001; HR = 0.3675, P = 0.0113); TTG = 3.8 months (HR = 0.2702, P = 6 × 10-17; HR = 0.2061, P = 2 × 10-5); and DpR = 11.3% (HR = 0.6326, P = 0.0028; HR = 0.4785, P = 0.0206). Multivariable Cox regression controlling for age and baseline tumor volume confirmed these factors as significant predictors of survival. Patients with a favorable pretreatment diffusion MRI phenotype had a significantly longer TTG and slower regrowth.ConclusionsRecurrent glioblastoma patients with a large, durable radiographic response to antiangiogenic agents have significantly longer survival. This information is useful for interpreting activity of antiangiogenic agents in recurrent glioblastoma.

Central nervous system (CNS) tumor patients commonly undergo multimodality treatment in the course of their disease. Adverse effects and complications from these interventions have not been systematically studied, but pose significant challenges in clinical practice and impact function and quality of life, especially in the management of long-term brain tumor survivors. Here, the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) has developed recommendations to prevent, diagnose, and manage adverse effects and complications in the adult primary brain CNS tumor (except lymphomas) patient population with a specific focus on surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. Specifically, we also provide recommendations for dose adaptations, interruptions, and reexposure for pharmacotherapy that may serve as a reference for the management of standard of care in clinical trials. We also summarize which interventions are unnecessary, inactive or contraindicated. This consensus paper should serve as a reference for the conduct of standard therapy within and outside of clinical trials.

Durable objective response rate (ORR) remains a meaningful endpoint in recurrent cancer; however, the target ORR for single-arm recurrent glioblastoma trials has not been based on historic information or tied to patient outcomes. The current study reviewed 68 treatment arms comprising 4793 patients in past trials in recurrent glioblastoma in order to judiciously define target ORRs for use in recurrent glioblastoma trials. ORR was estimated at 6.1% [95% CI 4.23; 8.76%] for cytotoxic chemothera + pies (ORR = 7.59% for lomustine, 7.57% for temozolomide, 0.64% for irinotecan, and 5.32% for other agents), 3.37% for biologic agents, 7.97% for (select) immunotherapies, and 26.8% for anti-angiogenic agents. ORRs were significantly correlated with median overall survival (mOS) across chemotherapy (R2= 0.4078, P < .0001), biologics (R2= 0.4003, P = .0003), and immunotherapy trials (R2= 0.8994, P < .0001), but not anti-angiogenic agents (R2= 0, P = .8937). Pooling data from chemotherapy, biologics, and immunotherapy trials, a meta-analysis indicated a strong correlation between ORR and mOS (R2= 0.3900, P < .0001; mOS [weeks] = 1.4xORR + 24.8). Assuming an ineffective cytotoxic (control) therapy has ORR = 7.6%, the average ORR for lomustine and temozolomide trials, a sample size of ≥40 patients with target ORR>25% is needed to demonstrate statistical significance compared to control with a high level of confidence (P < .01) and adequate power (>80%). Given this historic data and potential biases in patient selection, we recommend that well-controlled, single-arm phase II studies in recurrent glioblastoma should have a target ORR >25% (which translates to a median OS of approximately 15 months) and a sample size of ≥40 patients, in order to convincingly demonstrate antitumor activity. Crucially, this response needs to have sufficient durability, which was not addressed in the current study.

BRAFV600E alterations are prevalent across multiple tumors. Here we present final efficacy and safety results of a phase 2 basket trial of dabrafenib (BRAF kinase inhibitor) plus trametinib (MEK inhibitor) in eight cohorts of patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers: anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n = 36), biliary tract cancer (n = 43), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1), adenocarcinoma of the small intestine (n = 3), low-grade glioma (n = 13), high-grade glioma (n = 45), hairy cell leukemia (n = 55) and multiple myeloma (n = 19). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate in these cohorts was 56%, 53%, 0%, 67%, 54%, 33%, 89% and 50%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were median duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Median DoR was 14.4 months, 8.9 months, not reached, 7.7 months, not reached, 31.2 months, not reached and 11.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 6.7 months, 9.0 months, not reached, not evaluable, 9.5 months, 5.5 months, not evaluable and 6.3 months, respectively. Median OS was 14.5 months, 13.5 months, not reached, 21.8 months, not evaluable, 17.6 months, not evaluable and 33.9 months, respectively. The most frequent (≥20% of patients) treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (40.8%), fatigue (25.7%), chills (25.7%), nausea (23.8%) and rash (20.4%). The encouraging tumor-agnostic activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib suggests that this could be a promising treatment approach for some patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02034110 .

BackgroundTo assess whether artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support allows more reproducible and standardized assessment of treatment response on MRI in neuro-oncology as compared to manual 2-dimensional measurements of tumor burden using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria.MethodsA series of 30 patients (15 lower-grade gliomas, 15 glioblastoma) with availability of consecutive MRI scans was selected. The time to progression (TTP) on MRI was separately evaluated for each patient by 15 investigators over two rounds. In the first round the TTP was evaluated based on the RANO criteria, whereas in the second round the TTP was evaluated by incorporating additional information from AI-enhanced MRI sequences depicting the longitudinal changes in tumor volumes. The agreement of the TTP measurements between investigators was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) with confidence intervals (CI) and P-values obtained using bootstrap resampling.ResultsThe CCC of TTP-measurements between investigators was 0.77 (95% CI = 0.69,0.88) with RANO alone and increased to 0.91 (95% CI = 0.82,0.95) with AI-based decision support (P = .005). This effect was significantly greater (P = .008) for patients with lower-grade gliomas (CCC = 0.70 [95% CI = 0.56,0.85] without vs. 0.90 [95% CI = 0.76,0.95] with AI-based decision support) as compared to glioblastoma (CCC = 0.83 [95% CI = 0.75,0.92] without vs. 0.86 [95% CI = 0.78,0.93] with AI-based decision support). Investigators with less years of experience judged the AI-based decision as more helpful (P = .02).ConclusionsAI-based decision support has the potential to yield more reproducible and standardized assessment of treatment response in neuro-oncology as compared to manual 2-dimensional measurements of tumor burden, particularly in patients with lower-grade gliomas. A fully-functional version of this AI-based processing pipeline is provided as open-source (https://github.com/NeuroAI-HD/HD-GLIO-XNAT).

Vorasidenib and ivosidenib inhibit mutant forms of isocitrate dehydrogenase (mIDH) and have shown preliminary clinical activity against mIDH glioma. We evaluated both agents in a perioperative phase 1 trial to explore the mechanism of action in recurrent low-grade glioma (IGG) and select a molecule for phase 3 testing. Primary end-point was concentration of D-2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), the metabolic product of mIDH enzymes, measured in tumor tissue from 49 patients with mIDH1-R132H nonenhancing gliomas following randomized treatment with vorasidenib (50 mg or 10 mg once daily, q.d.), ivosidenib (500 mg q.d. or 250 mg twice daily) or no treatment before surgery. Tumor 2-HG concentrations were reduced by 92.6% (95% credible interval (CrI), 76.1-97.6) and 91.1% (95% CrI, 72.0-97.0) in patients treated with vorasidenib 50 mg q.d. and ivosidenib 500 mg q.d., respectively. Both agents were well tolerated and follow-up is ongoing. In exploratory analyses, 2-HG reduction was associated with increased DNA 5-hydroxymethylcytosine, reversal of 'proneural' and 'stemness' gene expression signatures, decreased tumor cell proliferation and immune cell activation. Vorasidenib, which showed brain penetrance and more consistent 2-HG suppression than ivosidenib, was advanced to phase 3 testing in patients with mIDH LGGs. Funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Servier Pharmaceuticals LLC; ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03343197.

Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant gliomas are the most common adult, malignant primary brain tumors diagnosed in patients younger than 50, constituting an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, sparking multiple efforts to improve their diagnosis and treatment. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), the current diagnosis and management of IDH-mutant gliomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies, such as targeted molecular therapies and immunotherapies, will be reviewed. Current challenges and future directions for research will be discussed.

Many studies in patients with brain tumors evaluating innovative PET tracers have been published in recent years, and the initial results are promising. Here, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) PET working group provides an overview of the literature on novel investigational PET tracers for brain tumor patients. Furthermore, newer indications of more established PET tracers for the evaluation of glucose metabolism, amino acid transport, hypoxia, cell proliferation, and others are also discussed. Based on the preliminary findings, these novel investigational PET tracers should be further evaluated considering their promising potential. In particular, novel PET probes for imaging of translocator protein and somatostatin receptor overexpression as well as for immune system reactions appear to be of additional clinical value for tumor delineation and therapy monitoring. Progress in developing these radiotracers may contribute to improving brain tumor diagnostics and advancing clinical translational research.

Imaging response assessment is a cornerstone of patient care and drug development in oncology. Clinicians/clinical researchers rely on tumor imaging to estimate the impact of new treatments and guide decision making for patients and candidate therapies. This is important in brain cancer, where associations between tumor size/growth and emerging neurological deficits are strong. Accurately measuring the impact of a new therapy on tumor growth early in clinical development, where patient numbers are small, would be valuable for decision making regarding late-stage development activation. Current attempts to measure the impact of a new therapy have limited influence on clinical development, as determination of progression, stability or response does not currently account for individual tumor growth kinetics prior to the initiation of experimental therapies. Therefore, we posit that imaging-based response assessment, often used as a tool for estimating clinical effect, is incomplete as it does not adequately account for growth trajectories or biological characteristics of tumors prior to the introduction of an investigational agent. Here, we propose modifications to the existing framework for evaluating imaging assessment in primary brain tumors that will provide a more reliable understanding of treatment effects. Measuring tumor growth trajectories prior to a given intervention may allow us to more confidently conclude whether there is an anti-tumor effect. This updated approach to imaging-based tumor response assessment is intended to improve our ability to select candidate therapies for later-stage development, including those that may not meet currently sought thresholds for "response" and ultimately lead to identification of effective treatments.

PurposePD-L1 is upregulated in glioblastoma and supports immunosuppression. We evaluated PD-L1 blockade with durvalumab among glioblastoma cohorts and investigated potential biomarkers.Patients and methodsMGMT unmethylated newly diagnosed patients received radiotherapy plus durvalumab (cohort A; n = 40). Bevacizumab-naïve, recurrent patients received durvalumab alone (cohort B; n = 31) or in combination with standard bevacizumab (cohort B2; n = 33) or low-dose bevacizumab (cohort B3; n = 33). Bevacizumab-refractory patients received durvalumab plus bevacizumab (cohort C; n = 22). Primary endpoints were: OS-12 (A), PFS-6 (B, B2, B3), and OS-6 (C). Exploratory biomarkers included: a systematic, quantitative, and phenotypic evaluation of circulating immune cells; tumor mutational burden (TMB); and tumor immune activation signature (IAS).ResultsNo cohort achieved the primary efficacy endpoint. Outcome was comparable among recurrent, bevacizumab-naïve cohorts. No unexpected toxicities were observed. A widespread reduction of effector immune cell subsets was noted among recurrent patients compared with newly diagnosed patients that was partially due to dexamethasone use. A trend of increased CD8+Ki67+ T cells at day 15 was noted among patients who achieved the primary endpoint and were not on dexamethasone. Neither TMB nor IAS predicted outcome.ConclusionsPatients with recurrent glioblastoma have markedly lower baseline levels of multiple circulating immune cell subsets compared with newly diagnosed patients. An early increase in systemic Ki67+CD8+ cells may warrant further evaluation as a potential biomarker of therapeutic benefit among patients with glioblastoma undergoing checkpoint therapy. Dexamethasone decreased immune cell subsets. PD-L1 blockade and combination with standard or reduced dose bevacizumab was ineffective.

BackgroundThere is an extensive literature highlighting the utility of blood-based liquid biopsies in several extracranial tumors for diagnosis and monitoring.MethodsThe RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) group developed a multidisciplinary international Task Force to review the English literature on liquid biopsy in gliomas focusing on the most frequently used techniques, that is circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells, and extracellular vesicles in blood and CSF.ResultsctDNA has a higher sensitivity and capacity to represent the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in comparison to circulating tumor cells. Exosomes have the advantages to cross an intact blood-brain barrier and carry also RNA, miRNA, and proteins. Several clinical applications of liquid biopsies are suggested: to establish a diagnosis when tissue is not available, monitor the residual disease after surgery, distinguish progression from pseudoprogression, and predict the outcome.ConclusionsThere is a need for standardization of biofluid collection, choice of an analyte, and detection strategies along with rigorous testing in future clinical trials to validate findings and enable entry into clinical practice.

BackgroundSince IDH-mutant (mIDH) low-grade gliomas (LGGs) progress slowly and have a relatively long survival, there is a significant need for earlier measurements of clinical benefit. Guidance using the LGG RANO criteria recommends serial bidirectional (2D) measurements on a single slice; however, questions remain as to whether volumetric (3D) measurements are better, since they would allow for more accurate measurements in irregular shaped lesions and allow readers to better assess areas of subtle change.MethodsTwenty-one (out of 24) non-enhancing, recurrent mIDH1 LGGs were enrolled in a phase I, multicenter, open-label study of oral ivosidenib (NCT02073994), and with imaging pre- and post-treatment as part of this exploratory ad hoc analysis. 2D and 3D measurements on T2-weighted FLAIR images were centrally evaluated at an imaging contract research organization using a paired read and forced adjudication paradigm. The effects of 2D vs 3D measurements on progression-free survival (PFS), growth rate measurement variability, and reader concordance and adjudication rates were quantified.Results3D volumetric measurements showed significantly longer estimated PFS (P = .0181), more stable (P = .0063) and considerably slower measures of tumor growth rate (P = .0037), the highest inter-reader agreement (weighted kappa = 0.7057), and significantly lower reader discordance rates (P = .0002) with 2D LGG RANO.Conclusion3D volumetric measurements are better for determining response assessment in LGGs due to more stable measures of tumor growth rates (ie, less "yo-yo-ing" of measurements over time), highest inter-reader agreement, and lowest reader discordance rates. Continued evaluation in future studies is warranted to determine whether these measurements reflect clinical benefit.

BackgroundMeningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumor in adults. Clinical care is currently guided by the World Health Organization (WHO) grade assigned to meningiomas, a 3-tiered grading system based on histopathology features, as well as extent of surgical resection. Clinical behavior, however, often fails to conform to the WHO grade. Additional prognostic information is needed to optimize patient management.MethodsWe evaluated whether chromosomal copy-number data improved prediction of time-to-recurrence for patients with meningioma who were treated with surgery, relative to the WHO schema. The models were developed using Cox proportional hazards, random survival forest, and gradient boosting in a discovery cohort of 527 meningioma patients and validated in 2 independent cohorts of 172 meningioma patients characterized by orthogonal genomic platforms.ResultsWe developed a 3-tiered grading scheme (Integrated Grades 1-3), which incorporated mitotic count and loss of chromosome 1p, 3p, 4, 6, 10, 14q, 18, 19, or CDKN2A. 32% of meningiomas reclassified to either a lower-risk or higher-risk Integrated Grade compared to their assigned WHO grade. The Integrated Grade more accurately identified meningioma patients at risk for recurrence, relative to the WHO grade, as determined by time-dependent area under the curve, average precision, and the Brier score.ConclusionWe propose a molecularly integrated grading scheme for meningiomas that significantly improves upon the current WHO grading system in prediction of progression-free survival. This framework can be broadly adopted by clinicians with relative ease using widely available genomic technologies and presents an advance in the care of meningioma patients.

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.

Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as "recruiting" or "not yet recruiting" as of February 2021.

AbstractSeveral new therapeutic strategies have emerged over the past decades to address unmet clinical needs in high-grade gliomas, including targeted molecular agents and various forms of immunotherapy. Each of these strategies requires addressing fundamental questions, depending on the stage of drug development, including ensuring drug penetration into the brain, engagement of the drug with the desired target, biologic effects downstream from the target including metabolic and/or physiologic changes, and identifying evidence of clinical activity that could be expanded upon to increase the likelihood of a meaningful survival benefit. The current review article highlights these strategies and outlines how imaging technology can be used for therapeutic response evaluation in both targeted and immunotherapies in early phases of drug development in high-grade gliomas.

PurposeLower grade gliomas (LGGs) are malignant brain tumors. Current therapy is associated with short- and long-term toxicity. Progression to higher tumor grade is associated with contrast enhancement on MRI. The majority of LGGs harbor mutations in the genes encoding isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 (IDH1/IDH2). Vorasidenib (AG-881) is a first-in-class, brain-penetrant, dual inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 and mutant IDH2 enzymes.Patients and methodsWe conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation study of vorasidenib in 93 patients with mutant IDH1/2 (mIDH1/2) solid tumors, including 52 patients with glioma that had recurred or progressed following standard therapy. Vorasidenib was administered orally, once daily, in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Enrollment is complete; this trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02481154.ResultsVorasidenib showed a favorable safety profile in the glioma cohort. Dose-limiting toxicities of elevated transaminases occurred at doses ≥100 mg and were reversible. The protocol-defined objective response rate per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria for LGG in patients with nonenhancing glioma was 18% (one partial response, three minor responses). The median progression-free survival was 36.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.2-40.8] for patients with nonenhancing glioma and 3.6 months (95% CI, 1.8-6.5) for patients with enhancing glioma. Exploratory evaluation of tumor volumes in patients with nonenhancing glioma showed sustained tumor shrinkage in multiple patients.ConclusionsVorasidenib was well tolerated and showed preliminary antitumor activity in patients with recurrent or progressive nonenhancing mIDH LGG.

BackgroundThe Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date.MethodsA systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis.ResultsA total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215).ConclusionMany different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

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.

Cancer immunotherapy has made remarkable advances with over 50 separate Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals as first- or second-line indications since 2015. These include immune checkpoint blocking antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor-transduced T cells, and bispecific T-cell-engaging antibodies. While multiple cancer types now benefit from these immunotherapies, notable exceptions thus far include brain tumors, such as glioblastoma. As such, it seems critical to gain a better understanding of unique mechanistic challenges underlying the resistance of malignant gliomas to immunotherapy, as well as to acquire insights into the development of future strategies. An Immuno-Oncology Think Tank Meeting was held during the 2019 Annual Society for Neuro-Oncology Scientific Conference. Discussants in the fields of neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, neuro-imaging, medical oncology, and cancer immunology participated in the meeting. Sessions focused on topics such as the tumor microenvironment, myeloid cells, T-cell dysfunction, cellular engineering, and translational aspects that are critical and unique challenges inherent with primary brain tumors. In this review, we summarize the discussions and the key messages from the meeting, which may potentially serve as a basis for advancing the field of immune neuro-oncology in a collaborative manner.

Determination of therapeutic benefit in intracranial tumors is intimately dependent on serial assessment of radiographic images. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were established in 2010 to provide an updated framework to better characterize tumor response to contemporary treatments. Since this initial update a number of RANO criteria have provided some basic principles for the interpretation of changes on MR images; however, the details of how to operationalize RANO and other criteria for use in clinical trials are ambiguous and not standardized. In this review article designed for the neuro-oncologist or treating clinician, we outline essential steps for performing radiographic assessments by highlighting primary features of the Imaging Charter (referred to as the Charter for the remainder of this article), a document that describes the clinical trial imaging methodology and methods to ensure operationalization of the Charter into the workings of a clinical trial. Lastly, we provide recommendations for specific changes to optimize this methodology for neuro-oncology, including image registration, requirement of growing tumor for eligibility in trials of recurrent tumor, standardized image acquisition guidelines, and hybrid reader paradigms that allow for both unbiased measurements and more comprehensive interpretation.

PurposeVEGF is upregulated in glioblastoma and may contribute to immunosuppression. We performed a phase II study of pembrolizumab alone or with bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma.Patients and methodsEighty bevacizumab-naïve patients with recurrent glioblastoma were randomized to pembrolizumab with bevacizumab (cohort A, n = 50) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (cohort B, n = 30). The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS-6). Assessed biomarkers included evaluation of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte density, immune activation gene expression signature, and plasma cytokines. The neurologic assessment in neuro-oncology (NANO) scale was used to prospectively assess neurologic function.ResultsPembrolizumab alone or with bevacizumab was well tolerated but of limited benefit. For cohort A, PFS-6 was 26.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16.3-41.5], median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 months (95% CI, 7.7-14.2), objective response rate (ORR) was 20%, and median duration of response was 48 weeks. For cohort B, PFS-6 was 6.7% (95% CI, 1.7-25.4), median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 8.5-12.5), and ORR was 0%. Tumor immune markers were not associated with OS, but worsened OS correlated with baseline dexamethasone use and increased posttherapy plasma VEGF (cohort A) and mutant IDH1, unmethylated MGMT, and increased baseline PlGF and sVEGFR1 levels (cohort B). The NANO scale contributed to overall outcome assessment.ConclusionsPembrolizumab was ineffective as monotherapy and with bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma. The infrequent radiographic responses to combinatorial therapy were durable. Tumor immune biomarkers did not predict outcome. Baseline dexamethasone use and tumor MGMT warrant further study as potential biomarkers in glioblastoma immunotherapy trials.

BackgroundEvidence from single and multicenter phase II trials have suggested diffusion MRI is a predictive imaging biomarker for survival benefit in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) treated with anti-VEGF therapy. The current study confirms these findings in a large, randomized phase III clinical trial.MethodsPatients with rGBM were enrolled in a phase III randomized (1:1), controlled trial (NCT02511405) to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BV) versus BV in combination with ofranergene obadenovec (BV+VB-111), an anti-cancer viral therapy. In 170 patients with diffusion MRI available, pretreatment enhancing tumor volume and ADC histogram analysis were used to phenotype patients as having high (>1.24 µm2/ms) or low (

Glioblastoma is a devastating disease with poor prognosis. Few effective chemotherapeutics are currently available, and much effort has been expended to identify new drugs capable of slowing tumor progression. The phase 0 trial design was developed to facilitate early identification of promising agents for cancer that should undergo accelerated approval. This design features an early in-human study that enrolls a small number of patients who receive subtherapeutic doses of medication with the goals of describing pharmacokinetics through drug blood level measurements and determining intratumoral concentrations of the investigational compound as well as pharmacodynamics by studying the biochemical and physiological effects of drugs. In neuro-oncology, however, the presence of the blood-brain barrier and difficulty in obtaining brain tumor tissue warrant a separate set of considerations. In this paper, we critically reviewed the protocols used in all brain tumor related in-human phase 0 and phase 0-like ("window of opportunity") studies between 1993 and 2018, as well as ongoing clinical trials, and identified major challenges in trial design as applied to central nervous system tumors that include surgical specimen collection and storage, brain tumor drug level analysis, and confirmation of drug action. We therefore propose that phase 0 trials in neuro-oncology should include (i) only patients in whom a resection of the tumor is planned, (ii) use of clinical doses of an investigational agent, (iii) tissue sampling from enhancing and non-enhancing portions of the tumor, and (iv) assessment of drug-specific target effects. Standardization of clinical protocols for phase 0/window of opportunity studies can help accelerate the development of effective treatments for glioblastoma.

PurposeDiffuse gliomas are malignant brain tumors that include lower-grade gliomas (LGGs) and glioblastomas. Transformation of low-grade glioma into a higher tumor grade is typically associated with contrast enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging. Mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) gene occur in most LGGs (> 70%). Ivosidenib is an inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) under evaluation in patients with solid tumors.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase I, dose escalation and expansion study of ivosidenib in patients with mIDH1 solid tumors. Ivosidenib was administered orally daily in 28-day cycles.ResultsIn 66 patients with advanced gliomas, ivosidenib was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities reported. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached; 500 mg once per day was selected for the expansion cohort. The grade ≥ 3 adverse event rate was 19.7%; 3% (n = 2) were considered treatment related. In patients with nonenhancing glioma (n = 35), the objective response rate was 2.9%, with 1 partial response. Thirty of 35 patients (85.7%) with nonenhancing glioma achieved stable disease compared with 14 of 31 (45.2%) with enhancing glioma. Median progression-free survival was 13.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 33.2 months) and 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.9 months) for the nonenhancing and enhancing glioma cohorts, respectively. In an exploratory analysis, ivosidenib reduced the volume and growth rates of nonenhancing tumors.ConclusionIn patients with mIDH1 advanced glioma, ivosidenib 500 mg once per day was associated with a favorable safety profile, prolonged disease control, and reduced growth of nonenhancing tumors.

Despite the widespread clinical use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI, DSC-MRI methodology has not been standardized, hindering its utilization for response assessment in multicenter trials. Recently, the DSC-MRI Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition issued an updated consensus DSC-MRI protocol compatible with the standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) for high-grade gliomas that is increasingly used in the clinical setting and is the default MRI protocol for the National Clinical Trials Network. After reviewing the basis for controversy over DSC-MRI protocols, this paper provides evidence-based best practices for clinical DSC-MRI as determined by the Committee, including pulse sequence (gradient echo vs spin echo), BTIP-compliant contrast agent dosing (preload and bolus), flip angle (FA), echo time (TE), and post-processing leakage correction. In summary, full-dose preload, full-dose bolus dosing using intermediate (60°) FA and field strength-dependent TE (40-50 ms at 1.5 T, 20-35 ms at 3 T) provides overall best accuracy and precision for cerebral blood volume estimates. When single-dose contrast agent usage is desired, no-preload, full-dose bolus dosing using low FA (30°) and field strength-dependent TE provides excellent performance, with reduced contrast agent usage and elimination of potential systematic errors introduced by variations in preload dose and incubation time.