Search

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.

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.

Background Patients with relapsed intracranial germinoma can achieve durable remission with standard chemotherapy regimens and/or reirradiation; however, innovative therapies are required for patients with relapsed and/or refractory intracranial nongerminomatous germ cell tumors (NGGCTs) due to their poor prognosis. Improved outcomes have been reported using reinduction chemotherapy to achieve minimal residual disease, followed by marrow-ablative chemotherapy (HDCx) with autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell rescue (AuHPCR). We conducted a phase II trial evaluating the response and toxicity of a 3-drug combination developed for recurrent intracranial germ cell tumors consisting of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and oxaliplatin (GemPOx). Methods A total of 9 patients with confirmed relapsed or refractory intracranial GCT were enrolled after signing informed consent, and received at least 2 cycles of GemPOx, of which all but 1 had relapsed or refractory NGGCTs. One patient with progressive disease was found to have pathologically confirmed malignant transformation to pure embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma (without GCT elements), hence was ineligible and not included in the analysis. Patients who experienced sufficient responses proceeded to receive HDCx with AuHPCR. Treatment response was determined based on radiographic tumor assessments and tumor markers. Results A total of 7 patients achieved sufficient response and proceeded with HDCx and AuHPCR, and 5 subsequently received additional radiotherapy. A total of 2 patients developed progressive disease while receiving GemPOx. Myelosuppression and transaminitis were the most common treatment-related adverse events. With a mean follow-up of 44 months, 4 patients (3 NGGCTs, 1 germinoma) are alive without evidence of disease. Conclusions GemPOx demonstrates efficacy in facilitating stem cell mobilization, thus facilitating the feasibility of both HDCx and radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeA phase I, dose-finding study of vorinostat in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and pharmacokinetics in patients with high-grade glioma (HGG).Experimental designThis phase I, dose-finding, investigational study was conducted in two parts. Part 1 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days every 28 days. Part 2 was a dose-escalation study of vorinostat in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days of the first cycle and 200 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days of the subsequent 28-day cycles.ResultsIn part 1, the MTD of vorinostat administered on days 1 to 7 and 15 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, in combination with TMZ, was 500 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included grade 3 anorexia, grade 3 ALT, and grade 5 hemorrhage in the setting of grade 4 thrombocytopenia. In part 2, the MTD of vorinostat on days 1 to 7 and 15 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, combined with TMZ, was 400 mg daily. No DLTs were encountered, but vorinostat dosing could not be escalated further due to thrombocytopenia. The most common serious adverse events were fatigue, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and thromboembolic events. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between vorinostat and TMZ. Vorinostat treatment resulted in hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 in peripheral mononuclear cells.ConclusionVorinostat in combination with temozolomide is well tolerated in patients with HGG. A phase I/II trial of vorinostat with radiotherapy and concomitant TMZ in newly diagnosed glioblastoma is underway.

We have tested the predictive value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis in stratifying progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in bevacizumab-treated patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) from the multi-center BRAIN study. Available MRI's from patients enrolled in the BRAIN study (n = 97) were examined by generating ADC histograms from areas of enhancing tumor on T1 weighted post-contrast images fitted to a two normal distribution mixture curve. ADC classifiers including the mean ADC from the lower curve (ADC-L) and the mean lower curve proportion (LCP) were tested for their ability to stratify PFS and OS by using Cox proportional hazard ratios and the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Mean ADC-L was 1,209 × 10(-6)mm(2)/s ± 224 (SD), and mean LCP was 0.71 ± 0.23 (SD). Low ADC-L was associated with worse outcome. The hazard ratios for 6-month PFS, overall PFS, and OS in patients with less versus greater than mean ADC-L were 3.1 (95 % confidence interval: 1.6, 6.1; P = 0.001), 2.3 (95 % CI: 1.3, 4.0; P = 0.002), and 2.4 (95 % CI: 1.4, 4.2; P = 0.002), respectively. In patients with ADC-L 0.71 versus ADC-L >1,209 and LCP