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 O6-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 P 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 P = .046) and neratinib (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.02; one-sided P = .033) relative to the control arm but there was no PFS benefit with CC-115 (one-sided P = .523). None of the experimental therapies demonstrated a significant OS benefit (P > .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.

Enzalutamide With Radiation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Phase 2 Study.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is often used as adjuvant treatment with radiation therapy (RT) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. ADT is associated with multiple side effects, including weight gain, loss of libido, and hot flashes. In contrast, antiandrogen monotherapy has been generally better tolerated. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of enzalutamide (an antiandrogen) monotherapy with RT for the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This trial was an open-label, phase 2 study of 6 months of enzalutamide monotherapy with external beam RT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Enzalutamide was initiated 2 months before external beam RT. The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response measured at the end of enzalutamide administration at the 6-month timepoint. Secondary endpoints included assessment of toxicity and changes in anthropomorphic body measurement, sexual function, and metabolism. The sample size was 64 patients. The hypothesis was that if ≥60% of the patients did not achieve a PSA nadir of ≤0.2 ng/mL, the study results would be deemed negative. RESULTS: The results met the prespecified endpoint for efficacy in that PSA values ≤0.2 ng/mL were observed in 49 of 64 patients (77%), and 60 of 64 patients (94%) had PSA values ≤0.5ng/mL. The most frequent adverse events were hypertension and gynecomastia. There were no changes in anthropomorphic body measurements and only modest erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Using PSA response as an endpoint, enzalutamide monotherapy may be as effective as ADT in combination with external beam RT for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and it is associated with fewer side effects. Randomized trials comparing enzalutamide with ADT are justified.