A multicenter phase II study of temozolomide plus disulfiram and copper for recurrent temozolomide-resistant glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies have suggested promising activity for the combination of disulfiram and copper (DSF/Cu) against glioblastoma (GBM) including re-sensitization to temozolomide (TMZ). A previous phase I study demonstrated the safety of combining DSF/Cu with adjuvant TMZ for newly diagnosed GBM. This phase II study aimed to estimate the potential effectiveness of DSF/Cu to re-sensitize recurrent GBM to TMZ. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm phase II study treated recurrent TMZ-resistant GBM patients with standard monthly TMZ plus concurrent daily DSF 80 mg PO TID and Cu 1.5 mg PO TID. Eligible patients must have progressed after standard chemoradiotherapy and within 3 months of the last dose of TMZ. Known isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant or secondary GBMs were excluded. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit (response or stable disease for at least 6 months), and safety. RESULTS: From March 2017 to January 2018, 23 recurrent TMZ-resistant GBM patients were enrolled across seven centers, and 21 patients were evaluable for response. The median duration of DSF/Cu was 1.6 cycles (range: 0.1-12.0). The ORR was 0%, but 14% had clinical benefit. Median PFS was 1.7 months, and median OS was 7.1 months. Only one patient (4%) had dose-limiting toxicity (grade three elevated alanine transaminase). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DSF/Cu to TMZ for TMZ-resistant IDH-wild type GBM appears well tolerated but has limited activity for unselected population.

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. Trial registration Funded by Northwest Biotherapeutics; Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00045968; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00045968?term=NCT00045968&rank=1 ; initially registered 19 September 2002.

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.

Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) is an antimitotic treatment modality that interferes with glioblastoma cell division and organelle assembly by delivering low-intensity alternating electric fields to the tumor. Objective: To investigate whether TTFields improves progression-free and overall survival of patients with glioblastoma, a fatal disease that commonly recurs at the initial tumor site or in the central nervous system. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized, open-label trial, 695 patients with glioblastoma whose tumor was resected or biopsied and had completed concomitant radiochemotherapy (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months) were enrolled at 83 centers (July 2009-2014) and followed up through December 2016. A preliminary report from this trial was published in 2015; this report describes the final analysis. Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to TTFields plus maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229). The TTFields, consisting of low-intensity, 200 kHz frequency, alternating electric fields, was delivered (≥ 18 hours/d) via 4 transducer arrays on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable device. Temozolomide was administered to both groups (150-200 mg/m2) for 5 days per 28-day cycle (6-12 cycles). Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (tested at α = .046). The secondary end point was overall survival (tested hierarchically at α = .048). Analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat population. Adverse events were compared by group. Results: Of the 695 randomized patients (median age, 56 years; IQR, 48-63; 473 men [68%]), 637 (92%) completed the trial. Median progression-free survival from randomization was 6.7 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 4.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < .001). Median overall survival was 20.9 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group vs 16.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76; P < .001). Systemic adverse event frequency was 48% in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 44% in the temozolomide-alone group. Mild to moderate skin toxicity underneath the transducer arrays occurred in 52% of patients who received TTFields-temozolomide vs no patients who received temozolomide alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In the final analysis of this randomized clinical trial of patients with glioblastoma who had received standard radiochemotherapy, the addition of TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy vs maintenance temozolomide alone, resulted in statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival. These results are consistent with the previous interim analysis. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409.

Maintenance Therapy With Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Temozolomide vs Temozolomide Alone for Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Glioblastoma is the most devastating primary malignancy of the central nervous system in adults. Most patients die within 1 to 2 years of diagnosis. Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are a locoregionally delivered antimitotic treatment that interferes with cell division and organelle assembly. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of TTFields used in combination with temozolomide maintenance treatment after chemoradiation therapy for patients with glioblastoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: After completion of chemoradiotherapy, patients with glioblastoma were randomized (2:1) to receive maintenance treatment with either TTFields plus temozolomide (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229) (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months in both groups). The study enrolled 695 of the planned 700 patients between July 2009 and November 2014 at 83 centers in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and South Korea. The trial was terminated based on the results of this planned interim analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with TTFields was delivered continuously (>18 hours/day) via 4 transducer arrays placed on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable medical device. Temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2/d) was given for 5 days of each 28-day cycle. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population (significance threshold of .01) with overall survival in the per-protocol population (n = 280) as a powered secondary end point (significance threshold of .006). This prespecified interim analysis was to be conducted on the first 315 patients after at least 18 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The interim analysis included 210 patients randomized to TTFields plus temozolomide and 105 randomized to temozolomide alone, and was conducted at a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 18-60 months). Median progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.9-8.2 months) in the TTFields plus temozolomide group and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.3-5.2 months) in the temozolomide alone group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [98.7% CI, 0.43-0.89]; P = .001). Median overall survival in the per-protocol population was 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.7-25.0 months) in the TTFields plus temozolomide group (n = 196) and 15.6 months (95% CI, 13.3-19.1 months) in the temozolomide alone group (n = 84) (HR, 0.64 [99.4% CI, 0.42-0.98]; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this interim analysis of 315 patients with glioblastoma who had completed standard chemoradiation therapy, adding TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409.

High expression of the stem cell marker nestin is an adverse prognostic factor in WHO grade II-III astrocytomas and oligoastrocytomas.

Infiltrating astrocytomas and oligoastrocytomas of low to anaplastic grade (WHO grades II and III), in spite of being associated with a wide range of clinical outcomes, can be difficult to subclassify and grade by the current histopathologic criteria. Unlike oligodendrogliomas and anaplastic oligodendrogliomas that can be identified by the 1p/19q codeletion and the more malignant glioblastomas (WHO grade IV astrocytomas) that can be diagnosed solely based on objective features on routine hematoxylin and eosin sections, no such objective criteria exist for the subclassification of grade II-III astrocytomas and oligoastrocytomas (A+OA II-III). In this study, we evaluated the prognostic and predictive value of the stem cell marker nestin in adult A+OA II-III (n = 50) using immunohistochemistry and computer-assisted analysis on tissue microarrays. In addition, the correlation between nestin mRNA level and total survival was analyzed in the NCI Rembrandt database. The results showed that high nestin expression is a strong adverse prognostic factor for total survival (p = 0.0004). The strength of the correlation was comparable to but independent of the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 (IDH 1/2) mutation status. Histopathological grading and subclassification did not correlate significantly with outcome, although the interpretation of this finding is limited by the fact that grade III tumors were treated more aggressively than grade II tumors. These results suggest that nestin level and IDH 1/2 mutation status are strong prognostic features in A+OA II-III and possibly more helpful for treatment planning than routine histopathological variables such as oligodendroglial component (astrocytoma vs. oligoastrocytoma) and WHO grade (grade II vs. III).

Association of Autologous Tumor Lysate-Loaded Dendritic Cell Vaccination With Extension of Survival Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma: A Phase 3 Prospective Externally Controlled Cohort Trial.

Importance: Glioblastoma is the most lethal primary brain cancer. Clinical outcomes for glioblastoma remain poor, and new treatments are needed. Objective: To investigate whether adding autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccine (DCVax-L) to standard of care (SOC) extends survival among patients with glioblastoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, prospective, externally controlled nonrandomized trial compared overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM) and recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) treated with DCVax-L plus SOC vs contemporaneous matched external control patients treated with SOC. This international, multicenter trial was conducted at 94 sites in 4 countries from August 2007 to November 2015. Data analysis was conducted from October 2020 to September 2021. Interventions: The active treatment was DCVax-L plus SOC temozolomide. The nGBM external control patients received SOC temozolomide and placebo; the rGBM external controls received approved rGBM therapies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary and secondary end points compared overall survival (OS) in nGBM and rGBM, respectively, with contemporaneous matched external control populations from the control groups of other formal randomized clinical trials. Results: A total of 331 patients were enrolled in the trial, with 232 randomized to the DCVax-L group and 99 to the placebo group. Median OS (mOS) for the 232 patients with nGBM receiving DCVax-L was 19.3 (95% CI, 17.5-21.3) months from randomization (22.4 months from surgery) vs 16.5 (95% CI, 16.0-17.5) months from randomization in control patients (HR = 0.80; 98% CI, 0.00-0.94; P = .002). Survival at 48 months from randomization was 15.7% vs 9.9%, and at 60 months, it was 13.0% vs 5.7%. For 64 patients with rGBM receiving DCVax-L, mOS was 13.2 (95% CI, 9.7-16.8) months from relapse vs 7.8 (95% CI, 7.2-8.2) months among control patients (HR, 0.58; 98% CI, 0.00-0.76; P < .001). Survival at 24 and 30 months after recurrence was 20.7% vs 9.6% and 11.1% vs 5.1%, respectively. Survival was improved in patients with nGBM with methylated MGMT receiving DCVax-L compared with external control patients (HR, 0.74; 98% CI, 0.55-1.00; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, adding DCVax-L to SOC resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant extension of survival for patients with both nGBM and rGBM compared with contemporaneous, matched external controls who received SOC alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00045968.

Joint Final Report of EORTC 26951 and RTOG 9402: Phase III Trials With Procarbazine, Lomustine, and Vincristine Chemotherapy for Anaplastic Oligodendroglial Tumors.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the basis of the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOTs) are chemotherapy-sensitive brain tumors. We report the final very long-term survival results from European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 phase III trials initiated in 1990s, which both studied radiotherapy with/without neo/adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) for newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. The median follow-up duration in both was 18-19 years. For European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951, median, 14-year, and probable 20-year overall survival rates without versus with PCV were 2.6 years, 13.4%, and 10.1% versus 3.5 years, 25.1%, and 16.8% (N = 368 overall; hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = .033), with 1p19q codeletion 9.3 years, 26.2%, and 13.6% versus 14.2 years, 51.0%, and 37.1% (n = 80; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03; P = .063), respectively. For Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402, analogous results were 4.8 years, 16.5%, and 11.2% versus 4.8 years, 29.1%, and 24.6% (N = 289 overall; HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03; P = .08), with codeletion 7.3 years, 25.0%, and 14.9% versus 13.2 years, 46.1%, and 37% (n = 125; HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = .02), respectively. With that, the studies show similar long-term survival even without tumor recurrence in a significant proportion of patients after first-line treatment with radiotherapy/PCV.

A Bayesian adaptive randomized phase II multicenter trial of bevacizumab with or without vorinostat in adults with recurrent glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab has promising activity against recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). However, acquired resistance to this agent results in tumor recurrence. We hypothesized that vorinostat, a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor with anti-angiogenic effects, would prevent acquired resistance to bevacizumab. METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial used a Bayesian adaptive design to randomize patients with recurrent GBM to bevacizumab alone or bevacizumab plus vorinostat with the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes assessment (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor module [MDASI-BT]). Eligible patients were adults (≥18 y) with histologically confirmed GBM recurrent after prior radiation therapy, with adequate organ function, KPS ≥60, and no prior bevacizumab or HDAC inhibitors. RESULTS: Ninety patients (bevacizumab + vorinostat: 49, bevacizumab: 41) were enrolled, of whom 74 were evaluable for PFS (bevacizumab + vorinostat: 44, bevacizumab: 30). Median PFS (3.7 vs 3.9 mo, P = 0.94, hazard ratio [HR] 0.63 [95% CI: 0.38, 1.06, P = 0.08]), median OS (7.8 vs 9.3 mo, P = 0.64, HR 0.93 [95% CI: 0.5, 1.6, P = 0.79]) and clinical benefit were similar between the 2 arms. Toxicity (grade ≥3) in 85 evaluable patients included hypertension (n = 37), neurological changes (n = 2), anorexia (n = 2), infections (n = 9), wound dehiscence (n = 2), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (n = 2), and colonic perforation (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab combined with vorinostat did not yield improvement in PFS or OS or clinical benefit compared with bevacizumab alone or a clinical benefit in adults with recurrent GBM. This trial is the first to test a Bayesian adaptive design with adaptive randomization and Bayesian continuous monitoring in patients with primary brain tumor and demonstrates the feasibility of using complex Bayesian adaptive design in a multicenter setting.

Rindopepimut with Bevacizumab for Patients with Relapsed EGFRvIII-Expressing Glioblastoma (ReACT): Results of a Double-Blind Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Rindopepimut is a vaccine targeting the tumor-specific EGF driver mutation, EGFRvIII. The ReACT study investigated whether the addition of rindopepimut to standard bevacizumab improved outcome for patients with relapsed, EGFRvIII-positive glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, phase II study (NCT01498328) conducted at 26 hospitals in the United States, bevacizumab-naïve patients with recurrent EGFRvIII-positive glioblastoma were randomized to receive rindopepimut or a control injection of keyhole limpet hemocyanin, each concurrent with bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6) by central review with a one-sided significance of 0.2. RESULTS: Between May 2012 and 2014, 73 patients were randomized (36 rindopepimut, 37 control). Rindopepimut toxicity included transient, low-grade local reactions. As primary endpoint, PFS6 was 28% (10/36) for rindopepimut compared with 16% (6/37) for control (P = 0.12, one-sided). Secondary and exploratory endpoints also favored the rindopepimut group including a statistically significant survival advantage [HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32-0.88; two-sided log-rank P = 0.01], a higher ORR [30% (9/30) vs. 18% (6/34; P = 0.38)], median duration of response [7.8 months (95% CI, 3.5-22.2) vs. 5.6 (95% CI, 3.7-7.4)], and ability to discontinue steroids for ≥6 months [33% (6/18) vs. 0% (0/19)]. Eighty percent of rindopepimut-treated patients achieved robust anti-EGFRvIII titers (≥1:12,800), which were associated with prolonged survival (HR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.45; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our randomized trial supports the potential for targeted immunotherapy among patients with GBM, but the therapeutic benefit requires validation due to the small sample size and potential heterogeneity of bevacizumab response among recurrent patients with GBM.See related commentary by Wick and Wagener, p. 1535.

Adult Primary Peripheral PNET/Ewing's Sarcoma of the Cervical and Thoracic Spine.

This case report describes a patient with a rare occurrence of primary spinal intramedullary Ewing's sarcoma (ES) in the cervical and thoracic spine. The older age of disease occurrence, uncommon location in the cervical and thoracic spine, and EWSR1 gene fusion as the basis of diagnosis are unique features of this case. There is no clear protocol for treatment of primary extraskeletal ES of the spine, with controversy between evidence for pursuing surgery versus a combination of radiation and chemotherapy. Our patient was treated with temozolomide chemotherapy for recurrent metastatic disease of primary ES of the spine.

A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial of Dendritic Cell Vaccine ICT-107 in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial of ICT-107 in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a double-blinded randomized phase II trial of ICT-107 in newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma (GBM) and tested efficacy, safety, quality of life (QoL), and immune response. HLA-A1+ and/or -A2+-resected patients with residual tumor ≤1 cm3 received radiotherapy and concurrent temozolomide. Following completion of radiotherapy, 124 patients, randomized 2:1, received ICT-107 [autologous dendritic cells (DC) pulsed with six synthetic peptide epitopes targeting GBM tumor/stem cell-associated antigens MAGE-1, HER-2, AIM-2, TRP-2, gp100, and IL13Rα2] or matching control (unpulsed DC). Patients received induction ICT-107 or control weekly × 4 followed by 12 months of adjuvant temozolomide. Maintenance vaccinations occurred at 1, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: ICT-107 was well tolerated, with no difference in adverse events between the treatment and control groups. The primary endpoint, median overall survival (OS), favored ICT-107 by 2.0 months in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population but was not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) in the ITT population was significantly increased in the ICT-107 cohort by 2.2 months (P = 0.011). The frequency of HLA-A2 primary tumor antigen expression was higher than that for HLA-A1 patients, and HLA-A2 patients had higher immune response (via Elispot). HLA-A2 patients achieved a meaningful therapeutic benefit with ICT-107, in both the MGMT methylated and unmethylated prespecified subgroups, whereas only HLA-A1 methylated patients had an OS benefit. CONCLUSIONS: PFS was significantly improved in ICT-107-treated patients with maintenance of QoL. Patients in the HLA-A2 subgroup showed increased ICT-107 activity clinically and immunologically.

Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas.

The North American Brain Tumor Consortium (NABTC) uses 6-month progression-free survival (6moPFS) as the efficacy end point of therapy trials for adult patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. In this study, we investigated whether progression status at 6 months predicts survival from that time, implying the potential for prolonged survival if progression could be delayed. We also evaluated earlier time points to determine whether the time of progression assessment alters the strength of the prediction. Data were from 596 patient enrollments (159 with grade III gliomas and 437 with grade IV tumors) in NABTC phase II protocols between February 1998 and December 2002. Outcome was assessed statistically using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. Median survivals were 39 and 30 weeks for patients with grade III and grade IV tumors, respectively. Twenty-eight percent of patients with grade III and 16% of patients with grade IV tumors had progression-free survival of >26 weeks. Progression status at 9, 18, and 26 weeks predicted survival from those times for patients with grade III or grade IV tumors (p < 0.001 and hazard ratios < 0.5 in all cases). Including KPS, age, number of prior chemotherapies, and response in a multivariate model did not substantively change the results. Progression status at 6 months is a strong predictor of survival, and 6moPFS is a valid end point for trials of therapy for recurrent malignant glioma. Earlier assessments of progression status also predicted survival and may be incorporated in the design of future clinical trials.

Phase-1 trial of gefitinib and temozolomide in patients with malignant glioma: a North American brain tumor consortium study.

PURPOSE: This is a phase-I study of gefitinib in combination with temozolomide in patients with gliomas. The goal of the study was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to characterize the pharmacokinetics of gefitinib when combined with temozolomide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were stratified according to co-administration of enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic drugs (EIAEDs). There were 26 evaluable patients enrolled (16 on EIAEDs, 10 not on EIAEDs). All but seven patients had Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), and only six cases had a Karnosfsky Performance Status (KPS) of less than 80; median age was 51 years. All had received prior radiotherapy and 14 patients had no prior chemotherapy. The starting dose of temozolomide was 150 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days every 28 days and could be escalated to a maximum dose of 200 mg/m(2)/day in subsequent cycles. The starting dose of gefitinib was 500 mg/day given by mouth on a continuous basis. Dose-limiting toxicity was assessed in cycle one only. RESULTS: For patients on EIAEDs, the MTD of gefitinib was 1,000 mg/day in combination with temozolomide. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was due to diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. For patients not on EIAEDs, the MTD was 250 mg/day in combination with temozolomide. The DLT was due to increases in liver transaminases. Rash was not a significant toxicity at these dose levels. The peak concentration and AUC(0-24hr) at the 500 mg dose level was 1.8 and 2.5-fold lower, respectively, in the EIAED group compared to the non-EIAED group; trough levels of gefitinib increased in both groups consistent with the reported terminal half-life ranging from 27 to 51 h. CONCLUSION: The recommended phase-2 dose of gefitinib when used in combination with temozolomide is 1,000 and 250 mg/day, respectively, for patients on or not on EIAEDs.

Pharmacokinetic and tumor distribution characteristics of temsirolimus in patients with recurrent malignant glioma.

PURPOSE: To characterize the pharmacokinetics of temsirolimus and its major metabolite, sirolimus, in patients receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAED) compared with patients receiving non-EIAEDs. An additional objective was to determine whether concentrations of temsirolimus or sirolimus were achieved in brain tumor tissue. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with recurrent malignant gliomas not receiving EIAEDs initially received temsirolimus weekly at a dose of 250 mg i.v. The dose was subsequently reduced to 170 mg due to intolerable side effects. For patients taking EIAEDs, the starting dose of temsirolimus was 250 mg with standard dose escalation until the maximal tolerated dose was established. Ten whole blood samples were obtained over a period of 24 h after administration of temsirolimus for pharmacokinetic assessments. Patients eligible for cytoreductive surgery received temsirolimus before tumor resection. Whole blood and tumor tissue were obtained for analysis. RESULTS: Significant differences in the pharmacokinetic variables for temsirolimus and sirolimus were observed between the two patient groups at a comparable dose level of 250 mg. For patients receiving EIAEDs, the systemic exposure to temsirolimus was lower by 1.5-fold. Likewise, peak concentrations and exposure to sirolimus were lower by 2-fold. Measurable concentrations of temsirolimus and sirolimus were observed in brain tumor specimens. The average tissue to whole blood ratio for temsirolimus was 1.43 and 0.84 for sirolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs that induce cytochrome P450 3A4, such as EIAEDs, significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of temsirolimus and its active metabolite, sirolimus. Total exposure to temsirolimus and sirolimus was lower in the EIAED group at the maximum tolerated dose of 250 mg compared with the non-EIAED group at the maximum tolerated dose of 170 mg. However, brain tumor tissue concentrations of temsirolimus and sirolimus were relatively comparable in both groups of patients at their respective dose levels. Correlative analyses of the tissue for the inhibition of the key regulators (p70S6 kinase and 4E-binding protein 1) of mammalian target of rapamycin are necessary to define the therapeutic significance of the altered exposure to temsirolimus.

Phase I study of temozolomide and irinotecan for recurrent malignant gliomas in patients receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs: a north american brain tumor consortium study.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan when administrated with temozolomide every 28 days, in patients with recurrent malignant glioma who were also receiving CYP450 enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAED), and to characterize the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its metabolites. The study was also intended to assess whether temozolomide affects the conversion of irinotecan to SN-38. DESIGN: Patients with recurrent malignant glioma received a fixed dose of temozolomide (150 mg/m(2)) daily for 5 days from days 1 to 5 every 28 days, and an i.v. infusion of irinotecan on days 1 and 15 of each cycle. The starting dose of irinotecan was 350 mg/m(2), which was escalated to 550 mg/m(2) in 50-mg/m(2) increments. The plasma pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its active metabolite, SN-38, were determined during the infusion of irinotecan on cycle 1, day 1. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled into the study and treated. Thirty-one patients were evaluable for both tumor response and toxicity and two patients were evaluable for toxicity only. Common toxicities included neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 diarrhea and nausea/vomiting. The maximum tolerated dose for irinotecan was determined to be 500 mg/m(2). CONCLUSIONS: The recommended phase II dose of irinotecan in combination with temozolomide for patients receiving EIAEDs is 500 mg/m(2), administrated every 15 days on a 28-day schedule. This study also confirmed that concomitant administration of EIAEDs increases irinotecan clearance and influences SN-38 disposition. No pharmacokinetic interaction was observed between temozolomide and irinotecan.

A volumetric study of CyberKnife hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy as salvage for progressive malignant brain tumors: initial experience.

OBJECTIVE: Radiosurgery is frequently offered to patients with progressive malignant brain tumors if radiation therapy or chemotherapy fails to provide local control. The use of single-shot regimens, however, is limited by the risk of complications when the tumor is large, surrounded by edema or has been pre-treated with radiation. Hypofractionation may confer safety but has not been tested for these difficult tumors. We report the results of hypofractionation as an alternative option in a small cohort of progressive malignant brain tumors. METHODS: Hypofractionated CyberKnife radiotherapy was chosen for 18 progressive malignant brain tumors (six high-grade gliomas and 12 metastatic lesions) in 15 patients because of size, previous treatment with radiation or surrounding edema. The mean dose was 21 +/- 4 Gy and the number of fractions was 5 +/- 0.6. The volume of each tumor at treatment was compared with the volume at follow-up. RESULTS: Thirteen of the 18 tumors (72%) showed a volume decrease. The average volume change was a decrease of 16 +/- 58% (median: 20%) with a follow-up of 180 +/- 121 days (median: 172 days). Toxicity occurred in only one patient, with symptoms improving on steroids. DISCUSSION: Progression of malignant brain tumors not ideal for single-shot radiosurgery can be arrested or reversed, at least for short periods, with minimal toxicity using hypofractionated radiotherapy. Longer studies will be needed to assess durability of this response in these difficult tumors.

Phase I/II study of imatinib mesylate for recurrent malignant gliomas: North American Brain Tumor Consortium Study 99-08.

PURPOSE: Phase I: To determine the maximum tolerated doses, toxicities, and pharmacokinetics of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) in patients with malignant gliomas taking enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAED) or not taking EIAED. Phase II: To determine the therapeutic efficacy of imatinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Phase I component used an interpatient dose escalation scheme. End points of the phase II component were 6-month progression-free survival and response. RESULTS: Fifty patients enrolled in the phase I component (27 EIAED and 23 non-EIAED). The maximum tolerated dose for non-EIAED patients was 800 mg/d. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia, rash, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. EIAED patients received up to 1,200 mg/d imatinib without developing dose-limiting toxicity. Plasma exposure of imatinib was reduced by approximately 68% in EIAED patients compared with non-EIAED patients. Fifty-five non-EIAED patients (34 glioblastoma multiforme and 21 anaplastic glioma) enrolled in the phase II component. Patients initially received 800 mg/d imatinib; 15 anaplastic glioma patients received 600 mg/d after hemorrhages were observed. There were 2 partial response and 6 stable disease among glioblastoma multiforme patients and 0 partial response and 5 stable disease among anaplastic glioma patients. Six-month progression-free survival was 3% for glioblastoma multiforme and 10% for anaplastic glioma patients. Five phase II patients developed intratumoral hemorrhages. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent imatinib has minimal activity in malignant gliomas. CYP3A4 inducers, such as EIAEDs, substantially decreased plasma exposure of imatinib and should be avoided in patients receiving imatinib for chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. The evaluation of the activity of combination regimens incorporating imatinib is under way in phase II trials.

Phase I trial of tipifarnib in patients with recurrent malignant glioma taking enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium Study.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, and clinical effect of tipifarnib, a farnesyltransferase (FTase) inhibitor, in patients with recurrent malignant glioma taking enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs). This study compares the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tipifarnib at MTD in patients on and off EIAEDs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Recurrent malignant glioma patients were treated with tipifarnib using an interpatient dose-escalation scheme. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-three assessable patients taking EIAEDs received tipifarnib in escalating doses from 300 to 700 mg bid for 21 of 28 days. The dose-limiting toxicity was rash, and the MTD was 600 mg bid. There were significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters at 300 mg bid between patients on and not on EIAEDs. When patients on EIAEDs and not on EIAEDs were treated at MTD (600 and 300 mg bid, respectively), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-12 hours) was approximately two-fold lower in patients on EIAEDs. Farnesyltransferase inhibition was noted at all tipifarnib dose levels, as measured in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). CONCLUSION: Toxicities and pharmacokinetics differ significantly when comparing patients on or off EIAEDs. EIAEDs significantly decreased the maximum concentration, AUC(0-12 hours), and predose trough concentrations of tipifarnib. Even in the presence of EIAEDs, the levels of tipifarnib were still sufficient to potently inhibit FTase activity in patient PBMCs. The relevance of these important findings to clinical activity will be determined in ongoing studies with larger numbers of patients.

A phase 2 trial of irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium study.

The purpose of this study was to determine the response to CPT-11 administered every three weeks to adults with progressive malignant glioma, treated with or without enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drug (EIAED) therapy, at the recommended phase 2 dose determined from a previous phase 1 study. Adult patients age 18 or older with a KPS of 60 or higher who had measurable recurrent grade III anaplastic glioma (AG) or grade IV glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) were eligible. No more than one prior chemotherapy was allowed, either as adjuvant therapy or for recurrent disease. The CPT-11 dose was 350 mg/m(2) i.v. every three weeks in patients not on EIAED and 750 mg/m(2) in patients on EIAED therapy. Patients with stable or responding disease could be treated until tumor progression or a total of 12 months of therapy. The primary end point of the study was to determine whether CPT-11 could significantly delay tumor progression, using the rate of six-month progression-free survival (PFS-6). The trial was sized to be able to discriminate between a 15% and 35% rate for the GBM group alone and between a 20% and 40% rate for the entire cohort. There were 51 eligible patients, including 38 GBM and 13 AG patients, enrolled. The median age was 52 and 42 years, respectively. PFS-6 for the entire cohort was 17.6%. PFS-6 was 15.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.31) for the GBM patients and 23% (95% CI, 0.07-0.52) for AG patients. Toxicity for the group included diarrhea and myelosuppression. We conclude that the recommended phase 2 dose of CPT-11 for patients with or without EIAED was ineffective on this schedule, in this patient population.