Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prediction and Assessment of Treatment Response in Bevacizumab-Treated Recurrent Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain tumor in adults, and it is associated with a dismal prognosis with a median survival of 15 months. Despite treatment with chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery, patients inevitably have disease recurrence. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal humanized antibody that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor signaling, and it has been shown to be effective in recurrent glioblastoma with respect to prolonging progression-free survival (PFS). The use of bevacizumab and other anti-angiogenic agents in recurrent glioblastoma have created novel challenges in interpreting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients. Furthermore, since only some patients appear to have a durable benefit from bevacizumab, there is a need for imaging biomarkers that can reliably identify this subgroup of patients. Partly due to the challenges created by anti-angiogenic agents, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) was proposed to address some of the limitations with traditional response assessment criteria. In the first part of this project, we attempted to validate the RANO criteria by performing a comparative analysis of the RANO criteria vs. the Macdonald criteria using imaging from the phase II BRAIN trial. As we hypothesized, the RANO criteria yielded a significantly decreased PFS by identifying a subset of patients who had progression of nonenhancing tumor evident on T2-weighted imaging. Additionally, response and progression as defined by the RANO criteria correlated with subsequent overall survival (OS) in landmark analyses. While this supports the implementation of RANO criteria for response assessment in glioma clinical trials, future research will be necessary to further improve response assessment by incorporating advanced techniques such as volumetric anatomic assessment, perfusion-weighted MR (PWI-MR), diffusion-weighted MR (DWI-MR), MR spectroscopy (MRS) and positron emission tomography (PET). Advanced imaging techniques are becoming increasingly recognized for their ability to provide objective, non-invasive assessment of treatment response but also to serve as predictive and prognostic biomarkers allowing for stratification of patient subgroups with better treatment outcome. In the second part of the project, we attempted to perform volumetric analysis of tumor size based on conventional MRI, as well as a histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) derived from diffusion-weighted MRI, to evaluate imaging parameters as predictors for PFS and OS in a single institution database of recurrent glioblastoma patients initiated on bevacizumab. Volumetric percentage change and absolute early post-treatment volume (3-6 weeks after initiation) of enhancing tumor can stratify survival for patients with recurrent glioblastoma receiving bevacizumab therapy. ADC histogram analysis using a multi-component curve-fitting technique within both enhancing and nonenhancing components of tumor prior to the initiation of bevacizumab can also be used to stratify OS in recurrent glioblastoma patients. While prospective studies are necessary to validate findings, future studies will increasingly incorporate multiparametric approaches to elucidate biomarkers that combine the value of conventional MRI with advanced techniques such as DWI-MR, PWI-MR, MRS and PET to obtain better predictors for PFS and OS in recurrent glioblastoma

The effects of releasing early results from ongoing clinical trials.

Most trials do not release interim summaries on efficacy and toxicity of the experimental treatments being tested, with this information only released to the public after the trial has ended. While early release of clinical trial data to physicians and patients can inform enrollment decision making, it may also affect key operating characteristics of the trial, statistical validity and trial duration. We investigate the public release of early efficacy and toxicity results, during ongoing clinical studies, to better inform patients about their enrollment options. We use simulation models of phase II glioblastoma (GBM) clinical trials in which early efficacy and toxicity estimates are periodically released accordingly to a pre-specified protocol. Patients can use the reported interim efficacy and toxicity information, with the support of physicians, to decide which trial to enroll in. We describe potential effects on various operating characteristics, including the study duration, selection bias and power

External Validation of Three Prognostic Scores for Brain Metastasis Velocity in Patients Treated with Intracranial Stereotactic Radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Brain metastasis velocity (BMV) has been proposed as a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in patients with brain metastases (BMs). In this study, we conducted an external validation and comparative assessment of the performance of all three BMV scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients treated with intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for BM at a single center between 2014 and 2018 were identified. Where possible, all three BMV scores were calculated. Log-rank tests and linear, logistic and Cox regression analysis were used for validation and predictor identification of OS. RESULTS For 333 of 384 brain metastasis patients, at least one BMV score could be calculated. In a sub-group of 187 patients, "classic" BMV was validated as categorical (p<0.0001) and continuous variable (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.02-1.03; p<0.0001). In a sub-group of 284 patients, "initial" BMV was validated as categorical variable (high-risk vs. low-risk; p<0.01), but not as continuous variable (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99-1.04; p=0.224). "Volume-based" BMV could not be validated in a sub-group of 104 patients. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, iBMV (HR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01-3.38; p<0.05) and cBMV (HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.15 4.68; p<0.05) were predictors for OS for intermediate-risk patients after first SRT and first DBFs, respectively. cBMV proved to be the dominant predictor for OS for high-risk patients (HR 2.99; 95% CI 1.30-6.91; p<0.05). CONCLUSION This study externally validated cBMV and iBMV as prognostic scores for OS in patients treated with SRT for BMs whereas validation of vBMV was not achieved

Inaugural Results of the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy: A Phase II Platform Trial for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Using Bayesian Adaptive Randomization

PURPOSE: The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial that uses response adaptive randomization and genomic profiling to efficiently identify novel therapies for phase III testing. Three initial experimental arms (abemaciclib [a cyclin-dependent kinase [CDK]4/6 inhibitor], neratinib [an epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor], and CC-115 [a deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent protein kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor]) were simultaneously evaluated against a common control arm. We report the results for each arm and examine the feasibility and conduct of the adaptive platform design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed O-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma were eligible if they had tumor genotyping to identify prespecified biomarker subpopulations of dominant glioblastoma signaling pathways (EGFR, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and CDK). Initial random assignment was 1:1:1:1 between control (radiation therapy and temozolomide) and the experimental arms. Subsequent Bayesian adaptive randomization was incorporated on the basis of biomarker-specific progression-free survival (PFS) data. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and one-sided values are reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02977780. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients were treated (71 control; 73 abemaciclib; 81 neratinib; 12 CC-115) in years 2017-2021. Abemaciclib and neratinib were well tolerated, but CC-115 was associated with ≥ grade 3 treatment-related toxicity in 58% of patients. PFS was significantly longer with abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.06; one-sided = .046) and neratinib (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.02; one-sided = .033) relative to the control arm but there was no PFS benefit with CC-115 (one-sided = .523). None of the experimental therapies demonstrated a significant OS benefit ( \u3e .05). CONCLUSION: The INSIGhT design enabled efficient simultaneous testing of three experimental agents using a shared control arm and adaptive randomization. Two investigational arms had superior PFS compared with the control arm, but none demonstrated an OS benefit. The INSIGhT design may promote improved and more efficient therapeutic discovery in glioblastoma. New arms have been added to the trial

Re-irradiation of recurrent IDH-wildtype glioblastoma in the bevacizumab and immunotherapy era: Target delineation, outcomes and patterns of recurrence

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND While recurrent glioblastoma patients are often treated with re-irradiation, there is limited data on the use of re-irradiation in the setting of bevacizumab (BEV), temozolomide (TMZ) re-challenge, or immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). We describe target delineation in patients with prior anti-angiogenic therapy, assess safety and efficacy of re-irradiation, and evaluate patterns of recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma treated at a single institution between 2013 and 2021 with re-irradiation were included. Tumor, treatment and clinical data were collected. Logistic and Cox regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS One hundred and seventeen recurrent glioblastoma patients were identified, receiving 129 courses of re-irradiation. In 66 % (85/129) of cases, patients had prior BEV. In the 80 patients (62 %) with available re-irradiation plans, 20 (25 %) had all T2/FLAIR abnormality included in the gross tumor volume (GTV). Median overall survival (OS) for the cohort was 7.3 months, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. Acute CTCAE grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 8 % of cases. Concurrent use of TMZ or ICI was not associated with improved OS nor PFS. On multivariable analysis, higher KPS was significantly associated with longer OS (p < 0.01). On subgroup analysis, patients with prior BEV had significantly more marginal recurrences than those without (26 % vs. 13 %, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION Re-irradiation can be safely employed in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Marginal recurrence was more frequent in patients with prior BEV, suggesting a need to consider more inclusive treatment volumes incorporating T2/FLAIR abnormality

The Impact of T2/FLAIR Evaluation per RANO Criteria on Response Assessment of Recurrent Glioblastoma Patients Treated with Bevacizumab.

The RANO criteria have not been assessed using outcome data from prospective trials. We examined the radiologic data of patients with recurrent glioblastoma from the randomized phase II trial (AVF3708g) to determine the effect of including T2/FLAIR evaluation as per RANO criteria on measurements of objective response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with assessment based on contrast enhancement (Macdonald criteria).The ORRs and median PFS were determined using the RANO criteria and compared with those obtained using the Macdonald criteria. Landmark analyses were performed at 2, 4, and 6 months, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the associations between OR and progression with subsequent survival.The ORRs were 0.331 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.260-0.409] and 0.393 (95% CI, 0.317-0.472) by RANO and Macdonald criteria, respectively (P &lt; 0.0001). The median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-5.5) using RANO criteria, compared with 6.4 months (95% CI, 5.5-7.1) as determined by Macdonald criteria (P = 0.01). At 2-, 4-, and 6-month landmarks, both OR status and PFS determined by either RANO or Macdonald criteria were predictive of overall survival [OS; hazard ratios for 4-month landmark (OR HR = 1.93, P = 0.0012; PFS HR, 4.23, P &lt; 0.0001)].The inclusion of T2/FLAIR assessment resulted in statistically significant differences in median PFS and ORRs compared with assessment of solely enhancing tumor (Macdonald criteria), although OR and PFS determined by both RANO and Macdonald criteria correlated with OS

Phase I study of a novel glioblastoma radiation therapy schedule exploiting cell-state plasticity

BACKGROUND: Glioblastomas comprise heterogeneous cell populations with dynamic, bidirectional plasticity between treatment-resistant stem-like and treatment-sensitive differentiated states, with treatment influencing this process. However, current treatment protocols do not account for this plasticity. Previously, we generated a mathematical model based on preclinical experiments to describe this process and optimize a radiation therapy fractionation schedule that substantially increased survival relative to standard fractionation in a murine glioblastoma model. METHODS: We developed statistical models to predict the survival benefit of interventions to glioblastoma patients based on the corresponding survival benefit in the mouse model used in our preclinical study. We applied our mathematical model of glioblastoma radiation response to optimize a radiation therapy fractionation schedule for patients undergoing re-irradiation for glioblastoma and developed a first-in-human trial (NCT03557372) to assess the feasibility and safety of administering our schedule. RESULTS: Our statistical modeling predicted that the hazard ratio, when comparing our novel radiation schedule with a standard schedule, would be 0.74. Our mathematical modeling suggested that a practical, near optimal schedule for re-irradiation of recurrent glioblastoma patients was 3.96 Gy x 7 (1 fraction/day) followed by 1.0 Gy x 9 (3 fractions/day). Our optimized schedule was successfully administered to 14/14 (100%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: A novel radiation therapy schedule based on mathematical modeling of cell-state plasticity is feasible and safe to administer to glioblastoma patients