Search

Introduction: Glioblastoma is the most common aggressive primary central nervous system cancer in adults characterised by uniformly poor survival. Despite maximal safe resection and postoperative radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemotherapy, tumours inevitably recur. Imaging with O-(2-[ 18 F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) has the potential to impact adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) planning, distinguish between treatment-induced pseudoprogression versus tumour progression as well as prognostication., Methods and Analysis: The FET-PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) study is a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, phase II study across 10 Australian sites and will enrol up to 210 adults aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. FET-PET will be performed at up to three time points: (1) following initial surgery and prior to commencement of chemoradiation (FET-PET1); (2) 4 weeks following concurrent chemoradiation (FET-PET2); and (3) within 14 days of suspected clinical and/or radiological progression on MRI (performed at the time of clinical suspicion of tumour recurrence) (FET-PET3). The co-primary outcomes are: (1) to investigate how FET-PET versus standard MRI impacts RT volume delineation and (2) to determine the accuracy and management impact of FET-PET in distinguishing pseudoprogression from true tumour progression. The secondary outcomes are: (1) to investigate the relationships between FET-PET parameters (including dynamic uptake, tumour to background ratio, metabolic tumour volume) and progression-free survival and overall survival; (2) to assess the change in blood and tissue biomarkers determined by serum assay when comparing FET-PET data acquired prior to chemoradiation with other prognostic markers, looking at the relationships of FET-PET versus MRI-determined site/s of progressive disease post chemotherapy treatment with MRI and FET-PET imaging; and (3) to estimate the health economic impact of incorporating FET-PET into glioblastoma management and in the assessment of post-treatment pseudoprogression or recurrence/true progression. Exploratory outcomes include the correlation of multimodal imaging, blood and tumour biomarker analyses with patterns of failure and survival., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol V.2.0 dated 20 November 2020 has been approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Austin Health, Victoria). Other clinical sites will provide oversight through local governance processes, including obtaining informed consent from suitable participants. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results of the FIG study (TROG 18.06) will be disseminated via relevant scientific and consumer forums and peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ANZCTR ACTRN12619001735145., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary central nervous system cancer in adults. The objective of the Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA) trial is to test hypotheses in real world setting to improve survival of people with GBM. Initial experimental arms are evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM). This study will compare maximal surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for 6 months with the addition of (1) 'neoadjuvant' chemotherapy beginning as soon as possible after surgery and/or (2) adjuvant chemotherapy continued until progression within the same study platform., Methods and Analysis: MAGMA will establish a platform for open-label, multiarm, multicentre randomised controlled testing of treatments for GBM. The study began recruiting in September 2020 and recruitment to the initial two interventions in MAGMA is expected to continue until September 2023.Adults aged ≥18 years with ndGBM will be given the option of undergoing randomisation to each study intervention separately, thereby giving rise to a partial factorial design, with two separate randomisation time points, one for neoadjuvant therapy and one for extended therapy. Patients will have the option of being randomised at each time point or continuing on with standard treatment.The primary outcome for the study is overall survival from the date of initial surgery until death from any cause. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, time to first non-temozolomide treatment, overall survival from each treatment randomisation, clinically significant toxicity as measured by grade 3 or 4 adverse events and health-related quality-of-life measures. Tertiary outcomes are predictive/prognostic biomarkers and health utilities and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.The primary analysis of overall survival will be performed separately for each study intervention according to the intention to treat principle on all patients randomised to each study intervention., Ethics and Dissemination: The study (Protocol version 2.0 dated 23 November 2020) was approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Sydney Local Health District: 2019/ETH13297). The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000048987., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Grades 2 and 3 gliomas (G2/3 gliomas), when combined, are the second largest group of malignant brain tumours in adults. The outcomes for G2/3 gliomas at progression approach the dismal outcomes for glioblastoma (GBM), yet there is a paucity of trials for Australian patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas compared with patients with GBM. LUMOS will be a pilot umbrella study for patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas that aims to match patients to targeted therapies based on molecular screening with contemporaneous tumour tissue. Participants in whom no actionable or no druggable mutation is found, or in whom the matching drug is not available, will form a comparator arm and receive standard of care chemotherapy. The objective of the LUMOS trial is to assess the feasibility of this approach in a multicentre study across five sites in Australia, with a view to establishing a national molecular screening platform for patient treatment guided by the mutational analysis of contemporaneous tissue biopsies METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a multicentre pilot study enrolling patients with recurrent grade 2/3 gliomas that have previously been treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy at diagnosis or at first relapse. Contemporaneous tumour tissue at the time of first relapse, defined as tissue obtained within 6 months of relapse and without subsequent intervening therapy, will be obtained from patients. Molecular screening will be performed by targeted next-generation sequencing at the reference laboratory (PathWest, Perth, Australia). RNA and DNA will be extracted from representative formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue scrolls or microdissected from sections on glass slides tissue sections following a review of the histology by pathologists. Extracted nucleic acid will be quantified by Qubit Fluorometric Quantitation (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Library preparation and targeted capture will be performed using the TruSight Tumor 170 (TST170) kit and samples sequenced on NextSeq 550 (Illumina) using NextSeq V.2.5 hi output reagents, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data analysis will be performed using the Illumina BaseSpace TST170 app v1.02 and a custom tertiary pipeline, implemented within the Clinical Genomics Workspace software platform from PierianDx (also refer to section 3.2). Primary outcomes for the study will be the number of patients enrolled and the number of patients who complete molecular screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of screened patients enrolled; proportion of patients who complete molecular screening; the turn-around time of molecular screening; and the value of a brain tumour specific multi-disciplinary tumour board, called the molecular tumour advisory panel as measured by the proportion of patients in whom the treatment recommendation was refined compared with the recommendations from the automated bioinformatics platform of the reference laboratory testing., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the lead Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Local Health District: Protocol No. X19-0383. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki 2013, guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007, updated 2018 and as amended periodically). Results will be disseminated using a range of media channels including newsletters, social media, scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000087954; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Temozolomide offers minimal benefit in patients with glioblastoma with unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status, hence, the need for novel therapies. This study evaluated whether veliparib, a brain-penetrant poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, acts synergistically with radiation and temozolomide., Methods: VERTU was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and MGMT-unmethylated promotor status. The experimental arm consisted of veliparib and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant veliparib and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to extend the progression-free survival rate at six months (PFS-6m) in the experimental arm., Results: A total of 125 participants were enrolled, with 84 in the experimental arm and 41 in the standard arm. The median age was 61 years, 70% were male, 59% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, and 87% underwent macroscopic resection. PFS-6m was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36%-57%) in the experimental arm and 31% (95% CI: 18%-46%) in the standard arm. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI: 11.4-14.5 months) in the experimental arm and 12.8 months (95% CI: 9.5-15.8 months) in the standard arm. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new safety signals., Conclusion: The veliparib-containing regimen was feasible and well tolerated. However, there was insufficient evidence of clinical benefit in this population. Further information from correlative translational work and other trials of PARP inhibitors in glioblastoma are still awaited., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology.)

The CABARET trial (ACTRN12610000915055) reported no difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) randomized to either bevacizumab monotherapy or bevacizumab plus carboplatin. However, a subset of patients showed durable responses and prolonged survival, with recorded survival times of over 30 months in five of 122 patients (4%). Patient selection for bevacizumab therapy would be enhanced if a predictive biomarker of response or survival could be identified; this biomarker sub-study attempted to identify novel biomarkers. Patients who opted to participate in this sub-study and who had adequate biospecimens for analysis (n = 54) were retrospectively evaluated for the expression of a series of tumor proteins. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was used to measure the expression of 19 proteins previously implicated in cancer treatment response to bevacizumab. MGMT promoter methylation was also assessed. Tumor DNA from five patients with outlying survival duration ('poor' and 'exceptional' survivors) was subjected to whole genome sequencing (WGS). No single protein expression level, including VEGF-A, predicted OS in the cohort. WGS of poor and exceptional survivors identified a gain in Chromosome 19 that was exclusive to the exceptional survivors. Validation of this finding requires examination of a larger independent cohort., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in glioblastoma can be challenging. For patients with recurrent glioblastoma managed on the CABARET trial, we compared disease status assessed at hospitals and subsequent blinded central expert radiological review., Methods: MRI results and clinical status at specified time points were used for site and central assessment of disease status. Clinical status was determined by the site. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were used for both assessments. Site and central assessments of progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates were compared. Inter-rater variability for central review progression dates was assessed., Results: Central review resulted in shorter PFS in 45% of 89 evaluable patients (n = 40). Median PFS was 3.6 (central) versus 3.9 months (site) (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.8, P < 0.001). Responses were documented more frequently by sites (n = 16, 18%) than centrally (n = 11, 12%). Seven of 120 patients continued on trial without site-determined progression for more than 6 months beyond the central review determination of progression. Of scans reviewed by all three central reviewers, 33% were fully concordant for progression date., Conclusion: While the difference between site and central PFS dates was statistically significant, the 0.3-month median difference is small. The variability within central review is consistent with previous studies, highlighting the challenges in MRI interpretation in this context. A small proportion of patients benefited from treatment well beyond the centrally determined progression date, reinforcing that clinical status together with radiology results are important determinants of whether a therapy is effective for an individual., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Studies looking at the benefit of surgery at first relapse (second surgery) for recurrent glioblastoma were confounded by including patients with varying grades of glioma, performance status and extent of resection. This case-controlled study aims to remove these confounders to assess the survival impact of second surgery in recurrent glioblastoma. Retrospective data on patients with glioblastoma recurrence at two tertiary Australian hospitals from July 2009 to April 2015 was reviewed. Patients who had surgery at recurrence were matched with those who did not undergo surgery at recurrence, based on the extent of their initial resection and age. Overall survival (OS1 assessed from initial diagnosis and OS2 from the date of recurrence) as well as functional outcomes after resection were analysed. There were 120 patients (60 in each institution); median age at diagnosis was 56 years. Median OS1 was 14 months (95% CI 11.5-15.7) versus 22 months (95% CI 18-25) in patients who did not undergo second surgery and those with surgery at recurrence. OS2 was improved by second surgery (4.7 vs 9.6, HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38-0.72, P < 0.001), and by chemotherapy, given at recurrence, (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.92, P = 0.03). After second surgery, 80% did not require rehabilitation and 61% were independently mobile. Second surgery for recurrent glioblastoma was associated with a survival advantage. Chemotherapy independent of surgery, also improved survival. Functional outcomes were encouraging. More research is required in the era of improved surgical techniques and new antineoplastic therapies.

Background: Bevacizumab has been associated with prolonged progression-free survival for patients with recurrent glioblastoma; however, not all derive a benefit. An early indicator of efficacy or futility may allow early discontinuation for nonresponders. This study prospectively assessed the role of early magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) and its correlation with subsequent routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results and survival., Methods: Patients were part of a randomized phase 2 clinical trial (CABARET) comparing bevacizumab with bevacizumab plus carboplatin for recurrent glioblastoma. eMRI was conducted after 4 weeks in the trial (after 2 treatments with bevacizumab [10 mg/kg every 2 weeks]). The results were compared with the results of the subsequent 8-week MRI standard., Results: For 119 of 122 patients, eMRI was available, and 111 had subsequent MRI for comparison. Thirty-six (30%) had an early radiological response, and 17 (14%) had progressive disease. The concordance between eMRI and 8-week MRI was moderate (κ = 0.56), with most providing the same result (n = 79 [71%]). There was strong evidence that progression-free survival and overall survival were predicted by the eMRI response (both P values < .001). The median survival was 8.6 months for an eMRI response, 6.6 months for stable disease, and 3.7 months for progressive disease; the hazard ratio (progressive disease vs stable disease) was 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-6.0). Landmark analyses showed that eMRI progression was a strong predictor of mortality independent of other potential baseline predictors., Conclusions: In this study, early progression on MRI appears to be a robust marker of a poor prognosis for patients on bevacizumab. Cancer 2017;123:3576-82. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

In recurrent glioblastoma, health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a crucial trial endpoint. We examined HRQL outcomes as a secondary endpoint for patients in the CABARET randomized phase 2 trial. 122 patients were randomly allocated to bevacizumab monotherapy or bevacizumab plus carboplatin. We calculated change scores from baseline for each HRQL measure on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), together with time to deterioration in HRQL, and the proportion of participants with clinically meaningful improvements in specific disease-related symptoms. At baseline, 117 of 122 randomized patients (96%) attempted questionnaires. Questionnaire participation rates were >90% for patients continuing on treatment, however at the end-of-treatment visit only 72 (64% of eligible participants) returned a form. There were no differences between arms in change scores over the treatment period. Time to ≥10 point deterioration in scores from baseline was also similar between arms. HRQL deterioration occurred largely before progression for the domains tested, but scores in HRQL domains specifically relevant to symptoms of recurrent glioblastoma also improved for about 50% of patients with symptoms at baseline. Neither detrimental nor beneficial effects on HRQL were seen with carboplatin added to bevacizumab, with a proportion of patients on both arms experiencing symptomatic benefit. Given the reduced questionnaire completion at end of treatment, time to HRQL deterioration is a feasible and robust clinical trial endpoint in this patient population. Clinical trials registration number: ACTRN12610000915055.

Background: The optimal use of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM), including the choice of monotherapy or combination therapy, remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare combination therapy with bevacizumab monotherapy., Methods: This was a 2-part randomized phase 2 study. Eligibility criteria included recurrent GBM after radiotherapy and temozolomide, no other chemotherapy for GBM, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. The primary objective (Part 1) was to determine the effect of bevacizumab plus carboplatin versus bevacizumab monotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) using modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Bevacizumab was given every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg; and carboplatin every 4 weeks, (AUC 5). On progression, patients able to continue were randomized to continue or cease bevacizumab (Part 2). Secondary endpoints included objective radiological response rate (ORR), quality of life, toxicity, and overall survival (OS)., Results: One hundred twenty-two patients (median age, 55y) were enrolled to Part 1 from 18 Australian sites. Median follow-up was 32 months, and median on-treatment time was 3.3 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months for each arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.64-1.33, P = .66). ORR was 14% (combination) versus 6% (monotherapy) (P = .18). Median OS was 6.9 (combination) versus 7.5 months (monotherapy) (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82-1.69, P = .38). The incidence of bevacizumab-related adverse events was similar to prior literature, with no new toxicity signals. Toxicities were higher in the combination arm. Part 2 data (n = 48) will be reported separately., Conclusions: Adding carboplatin resulted in more toxicity without additional clinical benefit. Clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab were inferior to those in previously reported studies., Clinical Trials Registration Nr: ACTRN12610000915055., (© The Author(s) 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

BackgroundThere is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older.MethodsNUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm.ResultsA total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events.ConclusionsDue to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations.

Abstract: Aim: Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in glioblastoma can be challenging. For patients with recurrent glioblastoma managed on the CABARET trial, we compared disease status assessed at hospitals and subsequent blinded central expert radiological review. Methods: MRI results and clinical status at specified time points were used for site and central assessment of disease status. Clinical status was determined by the site. Response Assessment in Neuro‐Oncology (RANO) criteria were used for both assessments. Site and central assessments of progression‐free survival (PFS) and response rates were compared. Inter‐rater variability for central review progression dates was assessed. Results: Central review resulted in shorter PFS in 45% of 89 evaluable patients (n = 40). Median PFS was 3.6 (central) versus 3.9 months (site) (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3–1.8, P < 0.001). Responses were documented more frequently by sites (n = 16, 18%) than centrally (n = 11, 12%). Seven of 120 patients continued on trial without site‐determined progression for more than 6 months beyond the central review determination of progression. Of scans reviewed by all three central reviewers, 33% were fully concordant for progression date. Conclusion: While the difference between site and central PFS dates was statistically significant, the 0.3‐month median difference is small. The variability within central review is consistent with previous studies, highlighting the challenges in MRI interpretation in this context. A small proportion of patients benefited from treatment well beyond the centrally determined progression date, reinforcing that clinical status together with radiology results are important determinants of whether a therapy is effective for an individual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. In patients with recurrent glioblastoma, the benefit of bevacizumab beyond progression remains uncertain. We prospectively evaluated continuing or ceasing bevacizumab in patients who progressed while on bevacizumab. Methods. CABARET, a phase II study, initially randomized patients to bevacizumab with or without carboplatin (Part 1). At progression, eligible patients underwent a second randomization to continue or cease bevacizumab (Part 2). They could also receive additional chemotherapy regimens (carboplatin, temozolomide, or etoposide) or supportive care. Results. Of 120 patients treated in Part 1, 48 (80% of the anticipated 60-patient sample size) continued to Part 2. Despite randomization, there were some imbalances in patient characteristics. The best response was stable disease in 7 (30%) patients who continued bevacizumab and 2 (8%) patients who stopped receiving bevacizumab. There were no radiological responses. Median progression-free survival was 1.8 vs 2.0 months (bevacizumab vs no bevacizumab; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, .59-1.96; P = .81). Median overall survival was 3.4 vs 3.0 months (HR, .84; 95% CI, .47-1.50; P = .56 and HR .70; 95% CI .38-1.29; P = .25 after adjustment for baseline factors). Qualityof- life scores did not significantly differ between arms. While the maximum daily steroid dose was lower in the continuation arm, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. Patients who continued bevacizumab beyond disease progression did not have clear survival improvements, although the study was not powered to detect other than very large differences. While these data provide the only randomized evidence related to continuing bevacizumab beyond progression in recurrent glioblastoma, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions and suggests this remains an open question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]