Implementation of DNA Methylation Array Profiling in Pediatric Central Nervous System Tumors: The AIM BRAIN Project: An Australian and New Zealand Children's Haematology/Oncology Group Study.

DNA methylation array profiling for classifying pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors is a valuable adjunct to histopathology. However, unbiased prospective and interlaboratory validation studies have been lacking. The AIM BRAIN diagnostic trial involving 11 pediatric cancer centers in Australia and New Zealand was designed to test the feasibility of routine clinical testing and ran in parallel with the Molecular Neuropathology 2.0 (MNP2.0) study at Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (German Cancer Research Center). CNS tumors from 269 pediatric patients were prospectively tested on Illumina EPIC arrays, including 104 cases co-enrolled on MNP2.0. Using MNP classifier versions 11b4 and 12.5, we report classifications with a probability score ≥0.90 in 176 of 265 (66.4%) and 213 of 269 (79.2%) cases, respectively. Significant diagnostic information was obtained in 130 of 176 (74%) for 11b4, and 12 of 174 (7%) classifications were discordant with histopathology. Cases prospectively co-enrolled on MNP2.0 gave concordant classifications (99%) and score thresholds (93%), demonstrating excellent test reproducibility and sensitivity. Overall, DNA methylation profiling is a robust single workflow technique with an acceptable diagnostic yield that is considerably enhanced by the extensive subgroup and copy number profile information generated by the platform. The platform has excellent test reproducibility and sensitivity and contributes significantly to CNS tumor diagnosis.

Systems-Level Change to Alleviate Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Access for Adolescents and Young Adults in Australia.

Purpose: International data demonstrate association between clinical trial participation and reduced cancer mortality. Adolescents and young adults (AYA) have low clinical trial enrollment rates. We established a program to understand local barriers and develop targeted solutions that lead to greater AYA clinical trial participation. Methods: A steering committee (SC) with expertise in adult and pediatric oncology, research ethics, and consumer representation was formed. The SC mapped barriers related to AYA trial access and established working groups (WGs) around three themes. Results: The Regulatory Awareness WG identified a lack of understanding of processes that support protocol approval for clinical trials across the AYA age range. A guideline to raise awareness was developed. The Access WG identified challenges for young adults (18-25 years) to access a pediatric hospital to enroll in a pediatric trial. A procedure was developed to streamline applications for access. The first six applications using this procedure have been successful. The Availability WG identified lack of pediatric-adult oncology reciprocal relationships as a barrier to awareness of open trials, and future collaboration. An AYA Craft Group Framework was established to grow relationships within tumor streams across institutions; two craft groups are now operating locally. An additional achievement was a successful request to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for Australian adoption of the Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials. Conclusion: This multipronged approach to improving AYA clinical trial access has relevance for other health environments. Our knowledge products are available as an online toolkit.

A phase I study of panobinostat in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors, including CNS tumors.

PURPOSE: This was an open label, phase I (3 + 3 design), multi-centre study evaluating panobinostat in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors. METHODS: Primary endpoints were to establish MTD, define and describe associated toxicities, including dose limiting toxicities (DLT) and to characterize its pharmacokinetics (PK). Secondary endpoints included assessing the anti-tumour activity of panobinostat, and its biologic activity, by measuring acetylation of histones in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: Nine patients were enrolled and treated with intravenous panobinostat at a dosing level of 15 mg/m2 which was tolerated. Six were evaluable for adverse events. Two (33%) patients experienced Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia, 1 (17%) experienced Grade 3 anemia, and 2 (33%) experienced Grade 3 neutropenia. Grade 4 drug related pain occurred in 2 (33%) of the patients studied. Two (33%) patients experienced a Grade 2 QTcF change (0.478 ± 0.006 ms). One cardiac DLT (T wave changes) was reported. PK values for 15 mg/m2 (n = 9) dosing were: Tmax 0.8 h, Cmax 235.2 ng/mL, AUC0-t 346.8 h ng/mL and t1/2 7.3 h. Panobinostat significantly induced acetylation of histone H3 and H4 at all time points measured when compared to pre-treatment samples (p < 0.05). Pooled quantitative Western blot data confirmed that panobinostat significantly induced acetylation of histone H4 at 6 h (p < 0.01), 24 h (p < 0.01) and 28-70 h (p < 0.01) post dose. CONCLUSION: A significant biological effect of panobinostat, measured by acetylation status of histone H3 and H4, was achieved at a dose of 15 mg/m2. PK data and drug tolerability at 15 mg/m2 was similar to that previously published.

Variations of Surveillance Practice for Patients with Bone Sarcoma: A Survey of Australian Sarcoma Clinicians.

Introduction. After treatment, bone sarcoma patients carry a high chance of relapse and late effects from multimodal therapy. We hypothesize that significant variation in surveillance practice exists between pediatric medical oncology (PO) and nonpediatric medical oncology (NP) sarcoma disciplines. Methods. Australian sarcoma clinicians were approached to do a web based survey that assessed radiologic surveillance (RS) strategies, late toxicity assessment, and posttreatment psychosocial interventions. Results. In total, 51 clinicians responded. No differences were identified in local disease RS. In metastatic disease response assessment, 100% of POs (23/23) and 93% of NPs (24/26) conducted CT chest. However, this was more likely to occur for NPs in the context of a CT chest/abdomen/pelvis (NP: 10/26; PO: 1/23; p = 0.006). POs were more likely to use CXR for RS (p = 0.006). POs showed more prescriptive intensity in assessment of heart function (p = 0.001), hearing (p < 0.001), and fertility (p = 0.02). POs were more likely to deliver written information for health maintenance/treatment summary (p = 0.04). The majority of respondents described enquiring about psychosocial aspects of health (n = 33/37, 89%), but a routine formal psychosocial screen was only used by 23% (n = 6/26). Conclusion. There is high variability in bone sarcoma surveillance between PO and NP clinicians. Efforts to harmonize approaches would allow early and late effects recognition/intervention and facilitate improved patient care/transition and research.