Olutasidenib (FT-2102) in patients with relapsed or refractory IDH1-mutant glioma: A multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II trial

Brain penetration; Mutant; OlutasidenibPenetració cerebral; Mutant; OlutasidenibPenetración cerebral; Mutante; OlutasidenibBackground Olutasidenib (FT-2102) is a highly potent, orally bioavailable, brain-penetrant and selective inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1). The aim of the study was to determine the safety and clinical activity of olutasidenib in patients with relapsed/refractory gliomas harboring an IDH1R132X mutation. Methods This was an open-label, multicenter, nonrandomized, phase Ib/II clinical trial. Eligible patients (≥18 years) had histologically confirmed IDH1R132X-mutated glioma that relapsed or progressed on or following standard therapy and had measurable disease. Patients received olutasidenib, 150 mg orally twice daily (BID) in continuous 28-day cycles. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (cycle 1) and safety in phase I and objective response rate using the Modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria in phase II. Results Twenty-six patients were enrolled and followed for a median 15.1 months (7.3‒19.4). No DLTs were observed in the single-agent glioma cohort and the pharmacokinetic relationship supported olutasidenib 150 mg BID as the recommended phase II dose. In the response-evaluable population, disease control rate (objective response plus stable disease) was 48%. Two (8%) patients demonstrated a best response of partial response and eight (32%) had stable disease for at least 4 months. Grade 3‒4 adverse events (≥10%) included alanine aminotransferase increased and aspartate aminotransferase increased (three [12%], each). Conclusions Olutasidenib 150 mg BID was well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory gliomas harboring an IDH1R132X mutation and demonstrated preliminary evidence of clinical activity in this heavily pretreated population.This study was funded by Forma Therapeutics, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA

Clinical management of seizures in patients with meningiomas: Efficacy of surgical resection for seizure control and patient-tailored postoperative anti-epileptic drug management

Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumor. They are slow growing and often incidentally found tumors that arise from the arachnoid villi. As they grow, they have a greater likelihood of becoming symptomatic with seizures being one of the most clinically significant symptoms. Seizures are more likely to present as a symptom of larger meningiomas and meningiomas that compress cortical areas particularly those in non-skull base locations. These seizures are often managed medically, utilizing the same anti-seizure medications that are used to treat other causes of epilepsy. We discuss common anti-seizure medications used including valproate, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, phenytoin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate and their common adverse effects. The goal of pharmacotherapy for seizure control is to maximize seizure control while minimizing the adverse effects of the medication. The decision to provide medical management is dependent on individual seizure history and plans for surgical treatment. Patients who did not require seizure prophylaxis before surgery are commonly prescribed seizure prophylaxis postoperatively. Symptomatic meningiomas not controlled by medical management alone are commonly evaluated for surgical resection. The efficacy of surgical resection in providing seizure freedom is dependent on several features of the tumor including tumor size, the extent of the peritumoral edema, the number of tumors, sinus infiltration and the degree of resection

Effect of seizure timing on long-term survival in patients with brain tumor

OBJECTIVE: Seizures often occur in patients with primary brain tumor (BT). The aim of this study was to determine if there is an association between the time of occurrence of seizures during the course of BT and survival of these patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study at Henry Ford Hospital, an urban tertiary referral center, included all patients who were diagnosed with primary BTs at Henry Ford Health System between January 2006 and December 2014. Timing of seizure occurrence, if occurred at presentation or after the tumor diagnosis during follow-up period, in different grades of BTs, and survival of these patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 901 identified patients, 662 (53% male; mean age: 56 years) were included in final analysis, and seizures occurred in 283 patients (43%). Patients with World Health Organization (WHO) grade III BT with seizures as a presenting symptom only had better survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.67; P = 0.004). Seizures that occurred after tumor diagnosis only (adjusted HR: 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.81; P \u3c 0.001) in patients with WHO grade II tumors (adjusted HR: 3.41; 95% CI, 1.05-11.1; P = 0.041) and WHO grade IV tumors (adjusted HR: 2.14; 95% CI, 1.58-2.90; P \u3c 0.001) had higher mortality. Seizures that occurred at presentation and after diagnosis also had higher mortality (adjusted HR: 1.34; 95% CI, 1.00-1.80; P = 0.049), in patients with meningioma (adjusted HR: 6.19; 95% CI, 1.30-29.4; P = 0.021) and grade III tumors (adjusted HR: 6.19; 95% CI, 2.56-15.0; P \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSION: Seizures occurred in almost half of the patients with BTs. The association between seizures in patients with BT and their survival depends on the time of occurrence of seizures, if occurring at presentation or after tumor diagnosis, and the type of tumor. Better survival was noted in patients with WHO grade III BTs who had seizures at presentation at the time of diagnosis, while higher mortality was noted in WHO grade II tumors who had seizure at presentation and after tumor diagnosis, and in grade IV tumors after tumor diagnosis

Depression and anxiety in glioma patients

Glioma patients carry the burden of having both a progressive neurological disease and cancer, and may face a variety of symptoms, including depression and anxiety. These symptoms are highly prevalent in glioma patients (median point prevalence ranging from 16-41% for depression and 24-48% for anxiety when assessed by self-report questionnaires) and have a major impact on health-related quality of life and even overall survival time. A worse overall survival time for glioma patients with depressive symptoms might be due to tumor progression and/or its supportive treatment causing depressive symptoms, an increased risk of suicide or other (unknown) factors. Much is still unclear about the etiology of depressive and anxiety symptoms in glioma. These psychiatric symptoms often find their cause in a combination of neurophysiological and psychological factors, such as the tumor and/or its treatment. Although these patients have a particular idiosyncrasy, standard treatment guidelines for depressive and anxiety disorders apply, generally recommending psychological and pharmacological treatment. Only a few nonpharmacological trials have been conducted evaluating the efficacy of psychological treatments (eg, a reminiscence therapy-based care program) in this population, which significantly reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms. No pharmacological trials have been conducted in glioma patients specifically. More well-designed trials evaluating the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments for depressive and anxiety disorders in glioma are urgently needed to successfully treat psychiatric symptoms in brain tumor patients and to improve (health-related) quality of life

First Results on Survival from a Large Phase 3 Clinical Trial of an Autologous Dendritic Cell Vaccine in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

Background: Standard therapy for glioblastoma includes surgery, radiotherapy, and temozolomide. This Phase 3 trial evaluates the addition of an autologous tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cell vaccine (DCVax®-L) to standard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Methods: After surgery and chemoradiotherapy, patients were randomized (2:1) to receive temozolomide plus DCVax-L (n = 232) or temozolomide and placebo (n = 99). Following recurrence, all patients were allowed to receive DCVax-L, without unblinding. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: For the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 331), median OS (mOS) was 23.1 months from surgery. Because of the cross-over trial design, nearly 90% of the ITT population received DCVax-L. For patients with methylated MGMT (n = 131), mOS was 34.7 months from surgery, with a 3-year survival of 46.4%. As of this analysis, 223 patients are ≥ 30 months past their surgery date; 67 of these (30.0%) have lived ≥ 30 months and have a Kaplan-Meier (KM)-derived mOS of 46.5 months. 182 patients are ≥ 36 months past surgery; 44 of these (24.2%) have lived ≥ 36 months and have a KM-derived mOS of 88.2 months. A population of extended survivors (n = 100) with mOS of 40.5 months, not explained by known prognostic factors, will be analyzed further. Only 2.1% of ITT patients (n = 7) had a grade 3 or 4 adverse event that was deemed at least possibly related to the vaccine. Overall adverse events with DCVax were comparable to standard therapy alone. Conclusions: Addition of DCVax-L to standard therapy is feasible and safe in glioblastoma patients, and may extend survival

A randomized controlled phase III study of VB-111 combined with bevacizumab vs bevacizumab monotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GLOBE).

BackgroundOfranergene obadenovec (VB-111) is an anticancer viral therapy that demonstrated in a phase II study a survival benefit for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) who were primed with VB-111 monotherapy that was continued after progression with concomitant bevacizumab.MethodsThis pivotal phase III randomized, controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of upfront combination of VB-111 and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive VB-111 1013 viral particles every 8 weeks in combination with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (combination arm) or bevacizumab monotherapy (control arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsEnrolled were 256 patients at 57 sites. Median exposure to VB-111 was 4 months. The study did not meet its primary or secondary goals. Median OS was 6.8 versus 7.9 months in the combination versus control arm (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI: 0.91-1.59; P = 0.19) and ORR was 27.3% versus 21.9% (P = 0.26). A higher rate of grades 3-5 adverse events was reported in the combination arm (67% vs 40%), mainly attributed to a higher rate of CNS and flu-like/fever events. Trends for improved survival with combination treatment were seen in the subgroup of patients with smaller tumors and in patients who had a posttreatment febrile reaction.ConclusionsIn this study, upfront concomitant administration of VB-111 and bevacizumab failed to improve outcomes in rGBM. Change of treatment regimen, with the lack of VB-111 monotherapy priming, may explain the differences from the favorable phase II results.Clinical trials registrationNCT02511405

Correction to: First results on survival from a large Phase 3 clinical trial of an autologous dendritic cell vaccine in newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in the spelling of one of the author names. In this Correction the incorrect and correct author names are indicated and the author name has been updated in the original publication. The authors also reported an error in the Methods section of the original article. In this Correction the incorrect and correct versions of the affected sentence are indicated. The original article has not been updated with regards to the error in the Methods section.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144529/1/12967_2018_Article_1552.pd

DNA methylation profiling to predict recurrence risk in meningioma: development and validation of a nomogram to optimize clinical management

Abstract Background Variability in standard-of-care classifications precludes accurate predictions of early tumor recurrence for individual patients with meningioma, limiting the appropriate selection of patients who would benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy to delay recurrence. We aimed to develop an individualized prediction model of early recurrence risk combining clinical and molecular factors in meningioma. Methods DNA methylation profiles of clinically annotated tumor samples across multiple institutions were used to develop a methylome model of 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). Subsequently, a 5-year meningioma recurrence score was generated using a nomogram that integrated the methylome model with established prognostic clinical factors. Performance of both models was evaluated and compared with standard-of-care models using multiple independent cohorts. Results The methylome-based predictor of 5-year RFS performed favorably compared with a grade-based predictor when tested using the 3 validation cohorts (ΔAUC = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.03–0.018) and was independently associated with RFS after adjusting for histopathologic grade, extent of resection, and burden of copy number alterations (hazard ratio 3.6, 95% CI: 1.8–7.2, P &lt; 0.001). A nomogram combining the methylome predictor with clinical factors demonstrated greater discrimination than a nomogram using clinical factors alone in 2 independent validation cohorts (ΔAUC = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.22–0.27) and resulted in 2 groups with distinct recurrence patterns (hazard ratio 7.7, 95% CI: 5.3–11.1, P &lt; 0.001) with clinical implications. Conclusions The models developed and validated in this study provide important prognostic information not captured by previously established clinical and molecular factors which could be used to individualize decisions regarding postoperative therapeutic interventions, in particular whether to treat patients with adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation alone. </jats:sec