MGMT Promoter Methylation Cutoff with Safety Margin for Selecting Glioblastoma Patients into Trials Omitting Temozolomide: A Pooled Analysis of Four Clinical Trials.

The methylation status of the O <sup>6</sup> -methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter is predictive for benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma (GBM). A clinically optimized cutoff was sought allowing patient selection for therapy without temozolomide, while avoiding to withhold it from patients who may potentially benefit.Experimental Design: Quantitative MGMT methylation-specific PCR data were obtained for newly diagnosed patients with GBM screened or treated with standard radiotherapy and temozolomide in four randomized trials. The pooled dataset was randomly split into a training and test dataset. The unsupervised cutoff was obtained at a 50% probability to be (un)methylated. ROC analysis identified an optimal cutoff supervised by overall survival (OS). For 4,041 patients valid MGMT results were obtained, whereof 1,725 were randomized. The unsupervised cutoff in the training dataset was 1.27 (log <sub>2</sub> [1,000 × (MGMT+1)/ACTB]), separating unmethylated and methylated patients. The optimal supervised cutoff for unmethylated patients was -0.28 (AUC = 0.61), classifying "truly unmethylated" (≤-0.28) and "gray zone" patients (>-0.28, ≤1.27), the latter comprising approximately 10% of cases. In contrast, for patients with MGMT methylation (>1.27) more methylation was not related to better outcome. Both methylated and gray zone patients performed significantly better for OS than truly unmethylated patients [HR = 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.45, P < 0.0001; HR = 0.58, 95% CI, 0.43-0.78, P < 0.001], validated in the test dataset. The MGMT assay was highly reproducible upon retesting of 218 paired samples (R <sup>2</sup> = 0.94). Low MGMT methylation (gray zone) may confer some sensitivity to temozolomide treatment, hence the lower safety margin should be considered for selecting patients with unmethylated GBM into trials omitting temozolomide

Cilengitide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: biomarker expression and outcome.

Integrins αvβ3 and αvβ5 regulate angiogenesis and invasiveness in cancer, potentially by modulating activation of the transforming growth factor (TGF)-β pathway. The randomized phase III CENTRIC and phase II CORE trials explored the integrin inhibitor cilengitide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with versus without O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation. These trials failed to meet their primary endpoints.Immunohistochemistry was used to assess the levels of the target integrins of cilengitide, αvβ3 and αvβ5 integrins, of αvβ8 and of their putative target, phosphorylation of SMAD2, in tumor tissues from CENTRIC (n=274) and CORE (n=224).αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression correlated well in tumor and endothelial cells, but showed little association with αvβ8 or pSMAD2 levels. In CENTRIC, there was no interaction between the biomarkers and treatment for prediction of outcome. In CORE, higher αvβ3 levels in tumor cells were associated with improved progression-free survival by central review and with improved overall survival in patients treated with cilengitide.Integrins αvβ3, αvβ5 and αvβ8 are differentially expressed in glioblastoma. Integrin levels do not correlate with the activation level of the canonical TGF-β pathway. αvβ3 integrin expression may predict benefit from integrin inhibition in patients with glioblastoma lacking MGMT promoter methylation

Two cilengitide regimens in combination with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and unmethylated MGMT gene promoter: results of the open-label, controlled, randomized phase II CORE study.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for patients with glioblastoma remain poor, particularly for patients with unmethylated O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial investigated the efficacy and safety of 2 dose regimens of the selective integrin inhibitor cilengitide combined with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and an unmethylated MGMT promoter. METHODS: Overall, 265 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to standard cilengitide (2000 mg 2×/wk; n = 88), intensive cilengitide (2000 mg 5×/wk during wk 1-6, thereafter 2×/wk; n = 88), or a control arm (chemoradiotherapy alone; n = 89). Cilengitide was administered intravenously in combination with daily temozolomide (TMZ) and concomitant radiotherapy (RT; wk 1-6), followed by TMZ maintenance therapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, pharmacokinetics, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 16.3 months in the standard cilengitide arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.686; 95% CI: 0.484, 0.972; P = .032) and 14.5 months in the intensive cilengitide arm (HR, 0.858; 95% CI: 0.612, 1.204; P = .3771) versus 13.4 months in the control arm. Median progression-free survival assessed per independent review committee was 5.6 months (HR, 0.822; 95% CI: 0.595, 1.134) and 5.9 months (HR, 0.794; 95% CI: 0.575, 1.096) in the standard and intensive cilengitide arms, respectively, versus 4.1 months in the control arm. Cilengitide was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and intensive cilengitide dose regimens were well tolerated in combination with TMZ/RT→TMZ. Inconsistent overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes and a limited sample size did not allow firm conclusions regarding clinical efficacy in this exploratory phase II study

Associations of anticoagulant use with outcome in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

To test the hypothesis that despite bleeding risk, anticoagulants improve the outcome in glioblastoma because of reduced incidence of venous thromboembolic events and modulation of angiogenesis, infiltration and invasion. We assessed survival associations of anticoagulant use from baseline up to the start of temozolomide chemoradiotherapy (TMZ/RT) (period I) and from there to the start of maintenance TMZ chemotherapy (period II) by pooling data of three randomised clinical trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma including 1273 patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with anticoagulant use versus no use; therapeutic versus prophylactic versus no use; different durations of anticoagulant use versus no use; anticoagulant use versus use of anti-platelet agents versus neither anticoagulant nor anti-platelet agent use. Cox regression models were stratified by trial and adjusted for baseline prognostic factors. Anticoagulant use was documented in 75 patients (5.9%) in period I and in 104 patients (10.2%) in period II. Anticoagulant use during period II, but not period I, was associated with inferior OS than no use on multivariate analysis (p = 0.001, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.95). No decrease in OS became apparent when only patients with prophylactic anticoagulant use were considered. No survival association was established for anti-platelet agent use. Anticoagulant use was not associated with improved OS. Anticoagulants may not exert relevant anti-tumour properties in glioblastoma

Does Valproic Acid or Levetiracetam Improve Survival in Glioblastoma? A Pooled Analysis of Prospective Clinical Trials in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: Symptomatic epilepsy is a common complication of glioblastoma and requires pharmacotherapy. Several uncontrolled retrospective case series and a post hoc analysis of the registration trial for temozolomide indicated an association between valproic acid (VPA) use and improved survival outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To confirm the hypothesis suggested above, a combined analysis of survival association of antiepileptic drug use at the start of chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide was performed in the pooled patient cohort (n = 1,869) of four contemporary randomized clinical trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: AVAGlio (Avastin in Glioblastoma; NCT00943826), CENTRIC (Cilengitide, Temozolomide, and Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma and Methylated Gene Promoter Status; NCT00689221), CORE (Cilengitide, Temozolomide, and Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma and Unmethylated Gene Promoter Status; NCT00813943), and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0825 (NCT00884741). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between: (1) any VPA use and no VPA use at baseline or (2) VPA use both at start of and still after chemoradiotherapy. Results of Cox regression models stratified by trial and adjusted for baseline prognostic factors were analyzed. The same analyses were performed with levetiracetam (LEV). RESULTS: VPA use at start of chemoradiotherapy was not associated with improved PFS or OS compared with all other patients pooled (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.07; P = .241; OS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.15; P = .633). Furthermore, PFS and OS of patients taking VPA both at start of and still after chemoradiotherapy were not different from those without antiepileptic drug use at both time points (PFS: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.15; P = .467; OS: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.40; P = .440). Similarly, no association with improved outcomes was observed for LEV use. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis do not justify the use of VPA or LEV for reasons other than seizure control in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma outside clinical trials