Deep-learning-based reconstruction of undersampled MRI to reduce scan times: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The extended acquisition times required for MRI limit its availability in resource-constrained settings. Consequently, accelerating MRI by undersampling k-space data, which is necessary to reconstruct an image, has been a long-standing but important challenge. We aimed to develop a deep convolutional neural network (dCNN) optimisation method for MRI reconstruction and to reduce scan times and evaluate its effect on image quality and accuracy of oncological imaging biomarkers. METHODS: In this multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, MRI data from patients with glioblastoma treated at Heidelberg University Hospital (775 patients and 775 examinations) and from the phase 2 CORE trial (260 patients, 1083 examinations, and 58 institutions) and the phase 3 CENTRIC trial (505 patients, 3147 examinations, and 139 institutions) were used to develop, train, and test dCNN for reconstructing MRI from highly undersampled single-coil k-space data with various acceleration rates (R=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 15). Independent testing was performed with MRIs from the phase 2/3 EORTC-26101 trial (528 patients with glioblastoma, 1974 examinations, and 32 institutions). The similarity between undersampled dCNN-reconstructed and original MRIs was quantified with various image quality metrics, including structural similarity index measure (SSIM) and the accuracy of undersampled dCNN-reconstructed MRI on downstream radiological assessment of imaging biomarkers in oncology (automated artificial intelligence-based quantification of tumour burden and treatment response) was performed in the EORTC-26101 test dataset. The public NYU Langone Health fastMRI brain test dataset (558 patients and 558 examinations) was used to validate the generalisability and robustness of the dCNN for reconstructing MRIs from available multi-coil (parallel imaging) k-space data. FINDINGS: In the EORTC-26101 test dataset, the median SSIM of undersampled dCNN-reconstructed MRI ranged from 0·88 to 0·99 across different acceleration rates, with 0·92 (95% CI 0·92-0·93) for 10-times acceleration (R=10). The 10-times undersampled dCNN-reconstructed MRI yielded excellent agreement with original MRI when assessing volumes of contrast-enhancing tumour (median DICE for spatial agreement of 0·89 [95% CI 0·88 to 0·89]; median volume difference of 0·01 cm3 [95% CI 0·00 to 0·03] equalling 0·21%; p=0·0036 for equivalence) or non-enhancing tumour or oedema (median DICE of 0·94 [95% CI 0·94 to 0·95]; median volume difference of -0·79 cm3 [95% CI -0·87 to -0·72] equalling -1·77%; p=0·023 for equivalence) in the EORTC-26101 test dataset. Automated volumetric tumour response assessment in the EORTC-26101 test dataset yielded an identical median time to progression of 4·27 months (95% CI 4·14 to 4·57) when using 10-times-undersampled dCNN-reconstructed or original MRI (log-rank p=0·80) and agreement in the time to progression in 374 (95·2%) of 393 patients with data. The dCNN generalised well to the fastMRI brain dataset, with significant improvements in the median SSIM when using multi-coil compared with single-coil k-space data (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Deep-learning-based reconstruction of undersampled MRI allows for a substantial reduction of scan times, with a 10-times acceleration demonstrating excellent image quality while preserving the accuracy of derived imaging biomarkers for the assessment of oncological treatment response. Our developments are available as open source software and hold considerable promise for increasing the accessibility to MRI, pending further prospective validation. FUNDING: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) and an Else Kröner Clinician Scientist Endowed Professorship by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation.

Association of antidepressant drug use with outcome of patients with glioblastoma.

Depressive symptoms are common among patients with glioblastoma, but patients are often not treated with antidepressants. There is only limited evidence on the association of antidepressant drug use with survival in glioblastoma. We performed a pooled analysis of patients treated within the CENTRIC, CORE, AVAglio and ACT-IV trials to explore the relation of antidepressant drug use with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at baseline, at the start of maintenance therapy and at the start of maintenance cycle 4. We further assessed the association of antidepressant drugs with seizure, cognition, fatigue and a diagnosis of depression. Among more than 1700 patients, we found no significant association between the use of antidepressants at baseline or at the start of maintenance therapy and PFS or OS. However, we found OS, but not PFS, to be significantly worse in patients using antidepressants at the start of maintenance cycle 4. After adjustment for antiepileptic drug use and despite showing a trend for increased risk, seizures were not significantly associated with antidepressant drug use, nor was there a change in mini mental state examination (MMSE) scores or fatigue by antidepressant drug use at baseline. However, there was a significant positive association between antidepressant use at the start of maintenance treatment and fatigue during maintenance treatment. The association of antidepressant use at the start of maintenance cycle 4 with inferior OS of glioblastoma patients requires independent confirmation and further study. Further prospective trials should evaluate efficacy, side effects and associations with outcome of antidepressants in glioblastoma.

Adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma (CATNON; EORTC study 26053-22054): second interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The CATNON trial investigated the addition of concurrent, adjuvant, and both current and adjuvant temozolomide to radiotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. The benefit of concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy and relevance of mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes remain unclear. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 137 institutions across Australia, Europe, and North America included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally using a minimisation technique to radiotherapy alone (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy), radiotherapy with concurrent oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 per day), radiotherapy with adjuvant oral temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150-200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1-5), or radiotherapy with both concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients were stratified by institution, WHO performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, the presence of oligodendroglial elements on microscopy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted by stratification factors at randomisation in the intention-to-treat population. A second interim analysis requested by the independent data monitoring committee was planned when two-thirds of total required events were observed to test superiority or futility of concurrent temozolomide. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00626990. FINDINGS: Between Dec 4, 2007, and Sept 11, 2015, 751 patients were randomly assigned (189 to radiotherapy alone, 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide, 186 to radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide, and 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide). Median follow-up was 55·7 months (IQR 41·0-77·3). The second interim analysis declared futility of concurrent temozolomide (median overall survival was 66·9 months [95% CI 45·7-82·3] with concurrent temozolomide vs 60·4 months [45·7-71·5] without concurrent temozolomide; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [99·1% CI 0·73-1·28], p=0·76). By contrast, adjuvant temozolomide improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant temozolomide (median overall survival 82·3 months [95% CI 67·2-116·6] vs 46·9 months [37·9-56·9]; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·52-0·79], p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were haematological, occurring in no patients in the radiotherapy only group, 16 (9%) of 185 patients in the concurrent temozolomide group, and 55 (15%) of 368 patients in both groups with adjuvant temozolomide. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Clinical benefit was dependent on IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status. FUNDING: Merck Sharpe & Dohme.

Non-IDH1-R132H IDH1/2 mutations are associated with increased DNA methylation and improved survival in astrocytomas, compared to IDH1-R132H mutations.

Somatic mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase genes IDH1 and IDH2 occur at high frequency in several tumour types. Even though these mutations are confined to distinct hotspots, we show that gliomas are the only tumour type with an exceptionally high percentage of IDH1R132H mutations. Patients harbouring IDH1R132H mutated tumours have lower levels of genome-wide DNA-methylation, and an associated increased gene expression, compared to tumours with other IDH1/2 mutations ("non-R132H IDH1/2 mutations"). This reduced methylation is seen in multiple tumour types and thus appears independent of the site of origin. For 1p/19q non-codeleted glioma (astrocytoma) patients, we show that this difference is clinically relevant: in samples of the randomised phase III CATNON trial, patients harbouring tumours with IDH mutations other than IDH1R132H have a better outcome (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI [0.24, 0.71], p = 0.0013). Such non-R132H IDH1/2-mutated tumours also had a significantly lower proportion of tumours assigned to prognostically poor DNA-methylation classes (p < 0.001). IDH mutation-type was independent in a multivariable model containing known clinical and molecular prognostic factors. To confirm these observations, we validated the prognostic effect of IDH mutation type on a large independent dataset. The observation that non-R132H IDH1/2-mutated astrocytomas have a more favourable prognosis than their IDH1R132H mutated counterpart indicates that not all IDH-mutations are identical. This difference is clinically relevant and should be taken into account for patient prognostication.

Use of metformin and outcome of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: Pooled analysis.

Metformin has been linked to improve survival of patients with various cancers. There is little information on survival of glioblastoma patients after use of metformin. We assessed the association between metformin use and survival in a pooled analysis of patient data from 1,731 individuals from the randomized AVAglio, CENTRIC and CORE trials. We performed multivariate Cox analyses for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) comparing patients' use of metformin at baseline and/or during concomitant radiochemotherapy (TMZ/RT). Further exploratory analyses investigated the effect of metformin with a history of diabetes and nonfasting glucose levels in relation to OS or PFS of glioblastoma patients. Metformin alone or in any combination was not significantly associated with OS or PFS (at baseline, hazard ratio [HR] for OS = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65-1.16; HR for PFS = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.64-1.10; during TMZ/RT HR for OS = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.68-1.38; HR for PFS = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.74-1.41). We found a statistically nonsignificant association of metformin monotherapy with glioblastoma survival at baseline (HR for OS = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.42-1.10; HR for PFS = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.36-0.91), but not during the TMZ/RT period (HR for OS = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.51-1.56; HR for PFS = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.64-1.73). Diabetes mellitus or increased nonfasting glucose levels were not associated with a difference in OS or PFS in our selected study population. Metformin did not prolong survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma in our analysis. Additional studies may identify patients with specific tumor characteristics that are associated with potential benefit from treatment with metformin, possibly due to metabolic vulnerabilities.

Lomustine and Bevacizumab in Progressive Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is approved for the treatment of patients with progressive glioblastoma on the basis of uncontrolled data. Data from a phase 2 trial suggested that the addition of bevacizumab to lomustine might improve overall survival as compared with monotherapies. We sought to determine whether the combination would result in longer overall survival than lomustine alone among patients at first progression of glioblastoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with progression after chemoradiation in a 2:1 ratio to receive lomustine plus bevacizumab (combination group, 288 patients) or lomustine alone (monotherapy group, 149 patients). The methylation status of the promoter of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) was assessed. Health-related quality of life and neurocognitive function were evaluated at baseline and every 12 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 437 patients underwent randomization. The median number of 6-week treatment cycles was three in the combination group and one in the monotherapy group. With 329 overall survival events (75.3%), the combination therapy did not provide a survival advantage; the median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 10.1) in the combination group and 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 10.4) in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21; P=0.65). Locally assessed progression-free survival was 2.7 months longer in the combination group than in the monotherapy group: 4.2 months versus 1.5 months (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61; P<0.001). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 63.6% of the patients in the combination group and 38.1% of the patients in the monotherapy group. The addition of bevacizumab to lomustine affected neither health-related quality of life nor neurocognitive function. The MGMT status was prognostic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite somewhat prolonged progression-free survival, treatment with lomustine plus bevacizumab did not confer a survival advantage over treatment with lomustine alone in patients with progressive glioblastoma. (Funded by an unrestricted educational grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche and by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund; EORTC 26101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01290939 ; Eudra-CT number, 2010-023218-30 .).

Noninvasive Characterization of Tumor Angiogenesis and Oxygenation in Bevacizumab-treated Recurrent Glioblastoma by Using Dynamic Susceptibility MRI: Secondary Analysis of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26101 Trial.

Background Relevance of antiangiogenic treatment with bevacizumab in patients with glioblastoma is controversial because progression-free survival benefit did not translate into an overall survival (OS) benefit in randomized phase III trials. Purpose To perform longitudinal characterization of intratumoral angiogenesis and oxygenation by using dynamic susceptibility contrast agent-enhanced (DSC) MRI and evaluate its potential for predicting outcome from administration of bevacizumab. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the prospective randomized phase II/III European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26101 trial conducted between October 2011 and December 2015 in 596 patients with first recurrence of glioblastoma, the subset of patients with availability of anatomic MRI and DSC MRI at baseline and first follow-up was analyzed. Patients were allocated into those administered bevacizumab (hereafter, the BEV group; either bevacizumab monotherapy or bevacizumab with lomustine) and those not administered bevacizumab (hereafter, the non-BEV group with lomustine monotherapy). Contrast-enhanced tumor volume, noncontrast-enhanced T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal abnormality volume, Gaussian-normalized relative cerebral blood volume (nrCBV), Gaussian-normalized relative blood flow (nrCBF), and tumor metabolic rate of oxygen (nTMRO2) was quantified. The predictive ability of these imaging parameters was assessed with multivariable Cox regression and formal interaction testing. Results A total of 254 of 596 patients were evaluated (mean age, 57 years ± 11; 155 men; 161 in the BEV group and 93 in non-BEV group). Progression-free survival was longer in the BEV group (3.7 months; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.0, 4.2) compared with the non-BEV group (2.5 months; 95% CI: 1.5, 2.9; P = .01), whereas OS was not different (P = .15). The nrCBV decreased for the BEV group (-16.3%; interquartile range [IQR], -39.5% to 12.0%; P = .01), but not for the non-BEV group (1.2%; IQR, -17.9% to 23.3%; P = .19) between baseline and first follow-up. An identical pattern was observed for both nrCBF and nTMRO2 values. Contrast-enhanced tumor and noncontrast-enhanced T2 FLAIR signal abnormality volumes decreased for the BEV group (-66% [IQR, -83% to -35%] and -33% [IQR, -71% to -5%], respectively; P < .001 for both), whereas they increased for the non-BEV group (30% [IQR, -17% to 98%], P = .001; and 10% [IQR, -13% to 82%], P = .02, respectively) between baseline and first follow-up. None of the assessed MRI parameters were predictive for OS in the BEV group. Conclusion Bevacizumab treatment decreased tumor volumes, angiogenesis, and oxygenation, thereby reflecting its effectiveness for extending progression-free survival; however, these parameters were not predictive of overall survival (OS), which highlighted the challenges of identifying patients that derive an OS benefit from bevacizumab. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Dillon in this issue.

Automated quantitative tumour response assessment of MRI in neuro-oncology with artificial neural networks: a multicentre, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria and requirements for a uniform protocol have been introduced to standardise assessment of MRI scans in both clinical trials and clinical practice. However, these criteria mainly rely on manual two-dimensional measurements of contrast-enhancing (CE) target lesions and thus restrict both reliability and accurate assessment of tumour burden and treatment response. We aimed to develop a framework relying on artificial neural networks (ANNs) for fully automated quantitative analysis of MRI in neuro-oncology to overcome the inherent limitations of manual assessment of tumour burden. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we compiled a single-institution dataset of MRI data from patients with brain tumours being treated at Heidelberg University Hospital (Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg training dataset) to develop and train an ANN for automated identification and volumetric segmentation of CE tumours and non-enhancing T2-signal abnormalities (NEs) on MRI. Independent testing and large-scale application of the ANN for tumour segmentation was done in a single-institution longitudinal testing dataset from the Heidelberg University Hospital and in a multi-institutional longitudinal testing dataset from the prospective randomised phase 2 and 3 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-26101 trial (NCT01290939), acquired at 38 institutions across Europe. In both longitudinal datasets, spatial and temporal tumour volume dynamics were automatically quantified to calculate time to progression, which was compared with time to progression determined by RANO, both in terms of reliability and as a surrogate endpoint for predicting overall survival. We integrated this approach for fully automated quantitative analysis of MRI in neuro-oncology within an application-ready software infrastructure and applied it in a simulated clinical environment of patients with brain tumours from the Heidelberg University Hospital (Heidelberg simulation dataset). FINDINGS: For training of the ANN, MRI data were collected from 455 patients with brain tumours (one MRI per patient) being treated at Heidelberg hospital between July 29, 2009, and March 17, 2017 (Heidelberg training dataset). For independent testing of the ANN, an independent longitudinal dataset of 40 patients, with data from 239 MRI scans, was collected at Heidelberg University Hospital in parallel with the training dataset (Heidelberg test dataset), and 2034 MRI scans from 532 patients at 34 institutions collected between Oct 26, 2011, and Dec 3, 2015, in the EORTC-26101 study were of sufficient quality to be included in the EORTC-26101 test dataset. The ANN yielded excellent performance for accurate detection and segmentation of CE tumours and NE volumes in both longitudinal test datasets (median DICE coefficient for CE tumours 0·89 [95% CI 0·86-0·90], and for NEs 0·93 [0·92-0·94] in the Heidelberg test dataset; CE tumours 0·91 [0·90-0·92], NEs 0·93 [0·93-0·94] in the EORTC-26101 test dataset). Time to progression from quantitative ANN-based assessment of tumour response was a significantly better surrogate endpoint than central RANO assessment for predicting overall survival in the EORTC-26101 test dataset (hazard ratios ANN 2·59 [95% CI 1·86-3·60] vs central RANO 2·07 [1·46-2·92]; p<0·0001) and also yielded a 36% margin over RANO (p<0·0001) when comparing reliability values (ie, agreement in the quantitative volumetrically defined time to progression [based on radiologist ground truth vs automated assessment with ANN] of 87% [266 of 306 with sufficient data] compared with 51% [155 of 306] with local vs independent central RANO assessment). In the Heidelberg simulation dataset, which comprised 466 patients with brain tumours, with 595 MRI scans obtained between April 27, and Sept 17, 2018, automated on-demand processing of MRI scans and quantitative tumour response assessment within the simulated clinical environment required 10 min of computation time (average per scan). INTERPRETATION: Overall, we found that ANN enabled objective and automated assessment of tumour response in neuro-oncology at high throughput and could ultimately serve as a blueprint for the application of ANN in radiology to improve clinical decision making. Future research should focus on prospective validation within clinical trials and application for automated high-throughput imaging biomarker discovery and extension to other diseases. FUNDING: Medical Faculty Heidelberg Postdoc-Program, Else Kröner-Fresenius Foundation.

Bevacizumab and temozolomide in patients with first recurrence of WHO grade II and III glioma, without 1p/19q co-deletion (TAVAREC): a randomised controlled phase 2 EORTC trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is frequently used in the treatment of recurrent WHO grade II and III glioma, but without supporting evidence from randomised trials. Therefore, we assessed the use of bevacizumab in patients with first recurrence of grade II or III glioma who did not have 1p/19q co-deletion. METHODS: The TAVAREC trial was a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial done at 32 centres across Europe in patients with locally diagnosed grade II or III glioma without 1p/19q co-deletion, with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both. Previous chemotherapy must have been stopped at least 6 months before enrolment and radiotherapy must have been stopped at least 3 months before enrolment. Random group assignment was done electronically through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer web-based system, stratified by a minimisation procedure using institution, initial histology (WHO grade II vs III), WHO performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), and previous treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both). Patients were assigned to receive either temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2, orally) monotherapy on days 1-5 every 4 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles, or the same temozolomide regimen in combination with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenously) every 2 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 12 months in the per-protocol population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who started their allocated treatment. The study is registered at EudraCT (2009-017422-39) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01164189), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2011, and July 31, 2015, 155 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either monotherapy (n=77) or combination therapy (n=78). Overall survival in the per-protocol population at 12 months was achieved by 44 (61% [80% CI 53-69]) of 72 patients in the temozolomide group and 38 (55% [47-69]) of 69 in the combination group. The most frequent toxicity was haematological: 17 (23%) of 75 patients in the monotherapy group and 25 (33%) of 76 in the combination group developed grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicity. Other than haematological toxicities, the most common adverse events were nervous system disorders (59 [79%] of 75 patients in the monotherapy group vs 65 [86%] of 76 in the combination group), fatigue (53 [70%] vs 61 [80%]), and nausea (39 [52%] vs 43 [56%]). Infections were more frequently reported in the combination group (29 [38%] of 76 patients) than in the monotherapy group (17 [23%] of 75). One treatment-related death was reported in the combination group (infection after intratumoral haemorrhage during a treatment-related grade 4 thrombocytopenia). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence of improved overall survival with bevacizumab and temozolomide combination treatment versus temozolomide monotherapy. The findings from this study provide no support for further phase 3 studies on the role of bevacizumab in this disease. FUNDING: Roche Pharmaceuticals.

Interim results from the CATNON trial (EORTC study 26053-22054) of treatment with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma: a phase 3, randomised, open-label intergroup study.

BACKGROUND: The role of temozolomide chemotherapy in newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas, which are associated with lower sensitivity to chemotherapy and worse prognosis than 1p/19q co-deleted tumours, is unclear. We assessed the use of radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in adults with non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. METHODS: This was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma with WHO performance status scores of 0-2. The randomisation schedule was generated with the electronic EORTC web-based ORTA system. Patients were assigned in equal numbers (1:1:1:1), using the minimisation technique, to receive radiotherapy (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions of 1·8 Gy) alone or with adjuvant temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150-200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1-5); or to receive radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide 75 mg/m2 per day, with or without adjuvant temozolomide. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted for performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, presence of oligodendroglial elements, and MGMT promoter methylation status, analysed by intention to treat. We did a planned interim analysis after 219 (41%) deaths had occurred to test the null hypothesis of no efficacy (threshold for rejection p<0·0084). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00626990. FINDINGS: At the time of the interim analysis, 745 (99%) of the planned 748 patients had been enrolled. The hazard ratio for overall survival with use of adjuvant temozolomide was 0·65 (99·145% CI 0·45-0·93). Overall survival at 5 years was 55·9% (95% CI 47·2-63·8) with and 44·1% (36·3-51·6) without adjuvant temozolomide. Grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in 8-12% of 549 patients assigned temozolomide, and were mainly haematological and reversible. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Further analysis of the role of concurrent temozolomide treatment and molecular factors is needed. FUNDING: Schering Plough and MSD.

The DNA methylome of DDR genes and benefit from RT or TMZ in IDH mutant low-grade glioma treated in EORTC 22033.

The optimal treatment for patients with low-grade glioma (LGG) WHO grade II remains controversial. Overall survival ranges from 2 to over 15 years depending on molecular and clinical factors. Hence, risk-adjusted treatments are required for optimizing outcome and quality of life. We aim at identifying mechanisms and associated molecular markers predictive for benefit from radiotherapy (RT) or temozolomide (TMZ) in LGG patients treated in the randomized phase III trial EORTC 22033. As candidate biomarkers for these genotoxic treatments, we considered the DNA methylome of 410 DNA damage response (DDR) genes. We first identified 62 functionally relevant CpG sites located in the promoters of 24 DDR genes, using the LGG data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Then we tested their association with outcome [progression-free survival (PFS)] depending on treatment in 120 LGG patients of EORTC 22033, whose tumors were mutant for isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 (IDHmt), the molecular hallmark of LGG. The results suggested that seven CpGs of four DDR genes may be predictive for longer PFS in one of the treatment arms that comprised MGMT, MLH3, RAD21, and SMC4. Most interestingly, the two CpGs identified for MGMT are the same, previously selected for the MGMT-STP27 score that is used to determine the methylation status of the MGMT gene. This score was higher in the LGG with 1p/19q codeletion, in this and other independent LGG datasets. It was predictive for PFS in the TMZ, but not in the RT arm of EORTC 22033. The results support the hypothesis that a high score predicts benefit from TMZ treatment for patients with IDHmt LGG, regardless of the 1p/19q status. This MGMT methylation score may identify patients who benefit from first-line treatment with TMZ, to defer RT for long-term preservation of cognitive function and quality of life.

Novel, improved grading system(s) for IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas.

According to the 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (2016 CNS WHO), IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas comprised WHO grade II diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (AIIIDHmut), WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (AAIIIIDHmut), and WHO grade IV glioblastoma, IDH-mutant (GBMIDHmut). Notably, IDH gene status has been made the major criterion for classification while the manner of grading has remained unchanged: it is based on histological criteria that arose from studies which antedated knowledge of the importance of IDH status in diffuse astrocytic tumor prognostic assessment. Several studies have now demonstrated that the anticipated differences in survival between the newly defined AIIIDHmut and AAIIIIDHmut have lost their significance. In contrast, GBMIDHmut still exhibits a significantly worse outcome than its lower grade IDH-mutant counterparts. To address the problem of establishing prognostically significant grading for IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas in the IDH era, we undertook a comprehensive study that included assessment of histological and genetic approaches to prognosis in these tumors. A discovery cohort of 211 IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas with an extended observation was subjected to histological review, image analysis, and DNA methylation studies. Tumor group-specific methylation profiles and copy number variation (CNV) profiles were established for all gliomas. Algorithms for automated CNV analysis were developed. All tumors exhibiting 1p/19q codeletion were excluded from the series. We developed algorithms for grading, based on molecular, morphological and clinical data. Performance of these algorithms was compared with that of WHO grading. Three independent cohorts of 108, 154 and 224 IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas were used to validate this approach. In the discovery cohort several molecular and clinical parameters were of prognostic relevance. Most relevant for overall survival (OS) was CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion. Other parameters with major influence were necrosis and the total number of CNV. Proliferation as assessed by mitotic count, which is a key parameter in 2016 CNS WHO grading, was of only minor influence. Employing the parameters most relevant for OS in our discovery set, we developed two models for grading these tumors. These models performed significantly better than WHO grading in both the discovery and the validation sets. Our novel algorithms for grading IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas overcome the challenges caused by introduction of IDH status into the WHO classification of diffuse astrocytic tumors. We propose that these revised approaches be used for grading of these tumors and incorporated into future WHO criteria.

Do statins, ACE inhibitors or sartans improve outcome in primary glioblastoma?

Glioblastomas are malignant brain tumors with poor prognosis. Lately, data from clinical studies assessing the role of co-medications in different cancer types suggested reduced mortality and potential anti-tumor activity for statins, angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (sartans). Here, we analysed the association of co-treatment with statins, ACEI or sartans with outcome in a cohort of 810 patients enrolled in the phase III CENTRIC and phase II CORE trials on the role of the integrin antagonist, cilengitide, in newly diagnosed glioblastoma with or without O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed for each medication in the pooled patient group. No association was found for co-medication with either drug for PFS or OS. Median OS was 22.1 (statins) versus 22.2 (control) months (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.39, p = 0.69), 20.4 (ACEI) versus 22.6 (control) months (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.96-1.62, p = 0.10), and 21.7 (sartans) versus 22.3 (control) months (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.21, p = 0.38). None of the comparisons showed a signal for different PFS or OS when analyses were controlled for MGMT promoter methylation or treatment group (TMZ/RT â†’ TMZ vs. RT + CIL + TMZ â†’ TMZ + CIL). This secondary analysis of two large glioblastoma trials thus was unable to detect evidence for an association of the use of statins, ACEI or sartans with outcome in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. These data challenge the rationale for prospective studies on the possible role of these non-tumor-specific drugs within the concept of drug repurposing.

Corticosteroids compromise survival in glioblastoma.

Glioblastoma is the most common and most aggressive primary brain tumour. Standard of care consists of surgical resection followed by radiotherapy and concomitant and maintenance temozolomide (temozolomide/radiotherapy→temozolomide). Corticosteroids are commonly used perioperatively to control cerebral oedema and are frequently continued throughout subsequent treatment, notably radiotherapy, for amelioration of side effects. The effects of corticosteroids such as dexamethasone on cell growth in glioma models and on patient survival have remained controversial. We performed a retrospective analysis of glioblastoma patient cohorts to determine the prognostic role of steroid administration. A disease-relevant mouse model of glioblastoma was used to characterize the effects of dexamethasone on tumour cell proliferation and death, and to identify gene signatures associated with these effects. A murine anti-VEGFA antibody was used in parallel as an alternative for oedema control. We applied the dexamethasone-induced gene signature to The Cancer Genome Atlas glioblastoma dataset to explore the association of dexamethasone exposure with outcome. Mouse experiments were used to validate the effects of dexamethasone on survival in vivo Retrospective clinical analyses identified corticosteroid use during radiotherapy as an independent indicator of shorter survival in three independent patient cohorts. A dexamethasone-associated gene expression signature correlated with shorter survival in The Cancer Genome Atlas patient dataset. In glioma-bearing mice, dexamethasone pretreatment decreased tumour cell proliferation without affecting tumour cell viability, but reduced survival when combined with radiotherapy. Conversely, anti-VEGFA antibody decreased proliferation and increased tumour cell death, but did not affect survival when combined with radiotherapy. Clinical and mouse experimental data suggest that corticosteroids may decrease the effectiveness of treatment and shorten survival in glioblastoma. Dexamethasone-induced anti-proliferative effects may confer protection from radiotherapy- and chemotherapy-induced genotoxic stress. This study highlights the importance of identifying alternative agents such as vascular endothelial growth factor antagonists for managing oedema in glioblastoma patients. Beyond the established adverse effect profile of protracted corticosteroid use, this analysis substantiates the request for prudent and restricted use of corticosteroids in glioblastoma.

Health-related quality of life in patients with high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study.

BACKGROUND: Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with a high-risk low-grade glioma has been shown to have no significant effect on progression-free survival. If these treatments have a different effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), it might affect the choice of therapy. We postulated that temozolomide compromises HRQOL and global cognitive functioning to a lesser extent than does radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a prospective, phase 3, randomised controlled trial at 78 medical centres and large hospitals in 19 countries. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed diffuse (WHO grade II) astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, or mixed oligoastrocytoma, with a WHO performance status of 2 or lower, without previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy, who needed active treatment other than surgery. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) using a minimisation technique, stratified by WHO performance status (0-1 vs 2), age (<40 years vs ≥40 years), presence of contrast enhancement on MRI, chromosome 1p status (deleted vs non-deleted vs indeterminate), and the treating medical centre, to receive either radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1·8 Gy for 5 days per week up to 6·5 weeks) or temozolomide chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 daily, for 21 of 28 days [one cycle] for 12 cycles). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (results published separately); here, we report the results for two key secondary endpoints: HRQOL (assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's [EORTC] QLQ-C30 [version 3] and the EORTC Brain Cancer Module [QLQ-BN20]) and global cognitive functioning (assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]). We did analyses on the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed and is registered at EudraCT, number 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00182819. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 eligible patients to either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). The difference in HRQOL between the two treatment groups was not significant during the 36 months' follow-up (mean between group difference [averaged over all timepoints] 0·06, 95% CI -4·64 to 4·75, p=0·98). At baseline, 32 (13%) of 239 patients who received radiotherapy and 32 (14%) of 236 patients who received temozolomide chemotherapy had impaired cognitive function, according to the MMSE scores. After randomisation, five (8%) of 63 patients who received radiotherapy and three (6%) of 54 patients who received temozolomide chemotherapy and who could be followed up for 36 months had impaired cognitive function, according to the MMSE scores. No significant difference was recorded between the groups for the change in MMSE scores during the 36 months of follow-up. INTERPRETATION: The effect of temozolomide chemotherapy or radiotherapy on HRQOL or global cognitive functioning did not differ in patients with low-grade glioma. These results do not support the choice of temozolomide alone over radiotherapy alone in patients with high-risk low-grade glioma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme-Merck & Co, National Cancer Institute, Swiss Cancer League, National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, National Health and Medical Research Council, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.

Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study.

BACKGROUND: Outcome of low-grade glioma (WHO grade II) is highly variable, reflecting molecular heterogeneity of the disease. We compared two different, single-modality treatment strategies of standard radiotherapy versus primary temozolomide chemotherapy in patients with low-grade glioma, and assessed progression-free survival outcomes and identified predictive molecular factors. METHODS: For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study (EORTC 22033-26033), undertaken in 78 clinical centres in 19 countries, we included patients aged 18 years or older who had a low-grade (WHO grade II) glioma (astrocytoma, oligoastrocytoma, or oligodendroglioma) with at least one high-risk feature (aged >40 years, progressive disease, tumour size >5 cm, tumour crossing the midline, or neurological symptoms), and without known HIV infection, chronic hepatitis B or C virus infection, or any condition that could interfere with oral drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either conformal radiotherapy (up to 50·4 Gy; 28 doses of 1·8 Gy once daily, 5 days per week for up to 6·5 weeks) or dose-dense oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 once daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days [one cycle], for a maximum of 12 cycles). Random treatment allocation was done online by a minimisation technique with prospective stratification by institution, 1p deletion (absent vs present vs undetermined), contrast enhancement (yes vs no), age (<40 vs ≥40 years), and WHO performance status (0 vs ≥1). Patients, treating physicians, and researchers were aware of the assigned intervention. A planned analysis was done after 216 progression events occurred. Our primary clinical endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat; secondary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, neurocognitive function (will be reported separately), health-related quality of life and neurological function (reported separately), and correlative analyses of progression-free survival by molecular markers (1p/19q co-deletion, MGMT promoter methylation status, and IDH1/IDH2 mutations). This trial is closed to accrual but continuing for follow-up, and is registered at the European Trials Registry, EudraCT 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00182819. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2005, and March 26, 2010, 707 patients were registered for the study. Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 patients to receive either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). At a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR 31-56), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 35-44) in the temozolomide group and 46 months (40-56) in the radiotherapy group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·9-1·5, p=0·22). Median overall survival has not been reached. Exploratory analyses in 318 molecularly-defined patients confirmed the significantly different prognosis for progression-free survival in the three recently defined molecular low-grade glioma subgroups (IDHmt, with or without 1p/19q co-deletion [IDHmt/codel], or IDH wild type [IDHwt]; p=0·013). Patients with IDHmt/non-codel tumours treated with radiotherapy had a longer progression-free survival than those treated with temozolomide (HR 1·86 [95% CI 1·21-2·87], log-rank p=0·0043), whereas there were no significant treatment-dependent differences in progression-free survival for patients with IDHmt/codel and IDHwt tumours. Grade 3-4 haematological adverse events occurred in 32 (14%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in one (<1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy, and grade 3-4 infections occurred in eight (3%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in two (1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in eight (3%) patients in the radiotherapy group (grade 2) and 16 (7%) in the temozolomide group. 119 (25%) of all 477 patients had died at database lock. Four patients died due to treatment-related causes: two in the temozolomide group and two in the radiotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Overall, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival in patients with low-grade glioma when treated with either radiotherapy alone or temozolomide chemotherapy alone. Further data maturation is needed for overall survival analyses and evaluation of the full predictive effects of different molecular subtypes for future individualised treatment choices. FUNDING: Merck Sharpe & Dohme-Merck & Co, Canadian Cancer Society, Swiss Cancer League, UK National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, US National Cancer Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.

Cilengitide combined with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CENTRIC EORTC 26071-22072 study): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cilengitide is a selective αvß3 and αvß5 integrin inhibitor. Data from phase 2 trials suggest that it has antitumour activity as a single agent in recurrent glioblastoma and in combination with standard temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (particularly in tumours with methylated MGMT promoter). We aimed to assess cilengitide combined with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, we investigated the efficacy of cilengitide in patients from 146 study sites in 25 countries. Eligible patients (newly diagnosed, histologically proven supratentorial glioblastoma, methylated MGMT promoter, and age ≥18 years) were stratified for prognostic Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning analysis class and geographic region and centrally randomised in a 1:1 ratio with interactive voice response system to receive temozolomide chemoradiotherapy with cilengitide 2000 mg intravenously twice weekly (cilengitide group) or temozolomide chemoradiotherapy alone (control group). Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. Maintenance temozolomide was given for up to six cycles, and cilengitide was given for up to 18 months or until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We analysed survival outcomes by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00689221. FINDINGS: Overall, 3471 patients were screened. Of these patients, 3060 had tumour MGMT status tested; 926 patients had a methylated MGMT promoter, and 545 were randomly assigned to the cilengitide (n=272) or control groups (n=273) between Oct 31, 2008, and May 12, 2011. Median overall survival was 26·3 months (95% CI 23·8-28·8) in the cilengitide group and 26·3 months (23·9-34·7) in the control group (hazard ratio 1·02, 95% CI 0·81-1·29, p=0·86). None of the predefined clinical subgroups showed a benefit from cilengitide. We noted no overall additional toxic effects with cilengitide treatment. The most commonly reported adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the safety population were lymphopenia (31 [12%] in the cilengitide group vs 26 [10%] in the control group), thrombocytopenia (28 [11%] vs 46 [18%]), neutropenia (19 [7%] vs 24 [9%]), leucopenia (18 [7%] vs 20 [8%]), and convulsion (14 [5%] vs 15 [6%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of cilengitide to temozolomide chemoradiotherapy did not improve outcomes; cilengitide will not be further developed as an anticancer drug. Nevertheless, integrins remain a potential treatment target for glioblastoma. FUNDING: Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

No benefit from TMZ treatment in GB with truly unmethylated MGMT promoter: Reanalysis of the CE.6 and the pooled Nordic/NOA-08 trials in elderly GB patients.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of elderly/ frail patients with glioblastoma is a balance between avoiding undue toxicity, while not withholding effective treatment. It remains debated, whether these patients should receive combined chemo-radiotherapy with temozolomide (RT/TMZ➜TMZ) regardless of the O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase gene promoter (MGMTp) methylation status. MGMT is a well-known resistance factor blunting the treatment effect of TMZ, by repairing the most genotoxic lesion. Epigenetic silencing of the MGMTp sensitizes glioblastoma to TMZ. For risk adapted treatment, it is of utmost importance to accurately identify patients, who will not benefit from TMZ treatment. METHODS: Here, we present a reanalysis of the clinical trials CE.6 and the pooled NOA-08 and Nordic trials in elderly glioblastoma patients that compared RT to RT/TMZ➜TMZ, or RT to TMZ, respectively. For 687 patients with available MGMTp methylation data, we applied a cutoff discerning truly unmethylated glioblastoma, established in a pooled analysis of four clinical trials for glioblastoma, with RT/TMZ➜TMZ treatment, using the same quantitative methylation specific MGMTp PCR assay. RESULTS: When applying this restricted cutoff to the elderly patient population, we confirmed that glioblastoma with truly unmethylated MGMTp derived no benefit from TMZ treatment. In the Nordic/NOA-08 trials RT was better than TMZ, suggesting little or no benefit from TMZ. CONCLUSION: For evidence-based treatment of glioblastoma patients validated MGMTp methylation assays should be used that accurately identify truly unmethylated patients. Respective stratified management of patients will reduce toxicity without compromising outcome and allow testing of more promising treatment options.