BRAF-MEK Inhibition in Newly Diagnosed Papillary Craniopharyngiomas.

BACKGROUND: Craniopharyngiomas, primary brain tumors of the pituitary-hypothalamic axis, can cause clinically significant sequelae. Treatment with the use of surgery, radiation, or both is often associated with substantial morbidity related to vision loss, neuroendocrine dysfunction, and memory loss. Genotyping has shown that more than 90% of papillary craniopharyngiomas carry BRAF V600E mutations, but data are lacking with regard to the safety and efficacy of BRAF-MEK inhibition in patients with papillary craniopharyngiomas who have not undergone previous radiation therapy. METHODS: Eligible patients who had papillary craniopharyngiomas that tested positive for BRAF mutations, had not undergone radiation therapy previously, and had measurable disease received the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination vemurafenib-cobimetinib in 28-day cycles. The primary end point of this single-group, phase 2 study was objective response at 4 months as determined with the use of centrally determined volumetric data. RESULTS: Of the 16 patients in the study, 15 (94%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 100) had a durable objective partial response or better to therapy. The median reduction in the volume of the tumor was 91% (range, 68 to 99). The median follow-up was 22 months (95% CI, 19 to 30) and the median number of treatment cycles was 8. Progression-free survival was 87% (95% CI, 57 to 98) at 12 months and 58% (95% CI, 10 to 89) at 24 months. Three patients had disease progression during follow-up after therapy had been discontinued; none have died. The sole patient who did not have a response stopped treatment after 8 days owing to toxic effects. Grade 3 adverse events that were at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 12 patients, including rash in 6 patients. In 2 patients, grade 4 adverse events (hyperglycemia in 1 patient and increased creatine kinase levels in 1 patient) were reported; 3 patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, single-group study involving patients with papillary craniopharyngiomas, 15 of 16 patients had a partial response or better to the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination vemurafenib-cobimetinib. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03224767.).

Alliance A151945: Accrual and characteristics of adolescent and young adult patients in Alliance trials from 2000 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patient- and disease-specific characteristics associated with clinical trial enrollment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer may target efforts to improve accrual. METHODS: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) trials opened from January 1, 2000, and closed before January 1, 2018, for common AYA cancers were identified. Proportions of AYAs (aged 18-39 years old) versus non-AYAs (aged ≥40 years old) enrolled by cancer type were summarized by descriptive statistics. Among studies with ≥20 AYAs enrolled, demographic and disease characteristics of AYAs versus non-AYAs were compared with χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests. A qualitative review was also conducted of therapeutic trials included in analysis in PubMed through December 31, 2021, that reported AYA-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 188 trials enrolling 40,396 patients, AYAs represented 11% (4468 of 40,396) of accrual. AYA accrual varied by cancer type (leukemia, 23.6%; breast, 9.9%; lymphoma, 14.8%; colorectal, 6.2%; central nervous system, 8.1%; melanoma, 11.8%; sarcoma, 12%). Across ages, the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients enrolled was 1%-10%. Compared to non-AYAs, AYAs in breast and colorectal cancer trials were less likely to be White and more likely to be Hispanic. Disease characteristics differed by age for selected trials. Two trials reported AYA-specific survival, with no significant differences observed by age. CONCLUSIONS: AYA accrual to Alliance trials was comparable to or exceeded population-based, age-specific prevalence estimates for most cancer types. Greater proportional representation of Hispanic and non-White patients among AYAs reflects US demographic trends. The small number of minority patients enrolled across ages underscores the persistent challenge of ensuring equitable access to trials, including for AYAs.

Transforming the oncology data paradigm by creating, capturing, and retrieving structured cancer data at the point of care: A Mayo Clinic pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Structured data capture requires defined languages such as minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE). This pilot assessed the feasibility of capturing 5 mCODE categories (stage, disease status, performance status (PS), intent of therapy and intent to change therapy). METHODS: A tool (SmartPhrase) using existing and custom structured data elements was Built to capture 4 data categories (disease status, PS, intent of therapy and intent to change therapy) typically documented as free-text within notes. Existing functionality for stage was supported by the Build. Participant survey data, presence of data (per encounter), and time in chart were collected prior to go-live and repeat timepoints. The anticipated outcome was capture of >50% sustained over time without undue burden. RESULTS: Pre-intervention (5-weeks before go-live), participants had 1390 encounters (1207 patients). The median percent capture across all participants was 32% for stage; no structured data was available for other categories pre-intervention. During a 6-month pilot with 14 participants across three sites, 4995 encounters (3071 patients) occurred. The median percent capture across all participants and all post-intervention months increased to 64% for stage and 81%-82% for the other data categories post-intervention. No increase in participant time in chart was noted. Participants reported that data were meaningful to capture. CONCLUSIONS: Structured data can be captured (1) in real-time, (2) sustained over time without (3) undue provider burden using note-based tools. Our system is expanding the pilot, with integration of these data into clinical decision support, practice dashboards and potential for clinical trial matching.

An Update on the Clinical Status, Challenges, and Future Directions of Oncolytic Virotherapy for Malignant Gliomas.

OPINION STATEMENT: Malignant gliomas are common central nervous system tumors that pose a significant clinical challenge due to the lack of effective treatments. Glioblastoma (GBM), a grade 4 malignant glioma, is the most prevalent primary malignant brain tumor and is associated with poor prognosis. Current clinical trials are exploring various strategies to combat GBM, with oncolytic viruses (OVs) appearing particularly promising. In addition to ongoing and recently completed clinical trials, one OV (Teserpaturev, Delytact®) received provisional approval for GBM treatment in Japan. OVs are designed to selectively target and eliminate cancer cells while promoting changes in the tumor microenvironment that can trigger and support long-lasting anti-tumor immunity. OVs offer the potential to remodel the tumor microenvironment and reverse systemic immune exhaustion. Additionally, an increasing number of OVs are armed with immunomodulatory payloads or combined with immunotherapy approaches in an effort to promote anti-tumor responses in a tumor-targeted manner. Recently completed oncolytic virotherapy trials can guide the way for future treatment individualization through patient preselection, enhancing the likelihood of achieving the highest possible clinical success. These trials also offer valuable insight into the numerous challenges inherent in malignant glioma treatment, some of which OVs can help overcome.

Current drug development and trial designs in neuro-oncology: report from the first American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society for Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials Conference.

Successful drug development for people with cancers of the CNS has been challenging. There are multiple barriers to successful drug development including biological factors, rarity of the disease, and ineffective use of clinical trials. Based upon a series of presentations at the First Central Nervous System Clinical Trials Conference hosted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society for Neuro-Oncology, we provide an overview on drug development and novel trial designs in neuro-oncology. This Review discusses the challenges of therapeutic development in neuro-oncology and proposes strategies to improve the drug discovery process by enriching the pipeline of promising therapies, optimising trial design, incorporating biomarkers, using external data, and maximising efficacy and reproducibility of clinical trials.

National Cancer Institute Collaborative Workshop on Shaping the Landscape of Brain Metastases Research: challenges and recommended priorities.

Brain metastases are an increasing global public health concern, even as survival rates improve for patients with metastatic disease. Both metastases and the sequelae of their treatment are key determinants of the inter-related priorities of patient survival, function, and quality of life, mandating a multidimensional approach to clinical care and research. At a virtual National Cancer Institute Workshop in September, 2022, key stakeholders convened to define research priorities to address the crucial areas of unmet need for patients with brain metastases to achieve meaningful advances in patient outcomes. This Policy Review outlines existing knowledge gaps, collaborative opportunities, and specific recommendations regarding consensus priorities and future directions in brain metastases research. Achieving major advances in research will require enhanced coordination between the ongoing efforts of individual organisations and consortia. Importantly, the continual and active engagement of patients and patient advocates will be necessary to ensure that the directionality of all efforts reflects what is most meaningful in the context of patient care.

The future of cancer immunotherapy for brain tumors: a collaborative workshop.

Harnessing the effector mechanisms of the immune system to combat brain tumors with antigen specificity and memory has been in research and clinical testing for many years. Government grant mechanisms and non-profit organizations have supported many innovative projects and trials while biotech companies have invested in the development of needed tools, assays and novel clinical approaches. The National Brain Tumor Society and the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy partnered to host a workshop to share recent data, ideas and identify both hurdles and new opportunities for harnessing immunotherapy against pediatric and adult brain tumors. Adoptively transferred cell therapies have recently shown promising early clinical results. Local cell delivery to the brain, new antigen targets and innovative engineering approaches are poised for testing in a new generation of clinical trials. Although several such advances have been made, several obstacles remain for the successful application of immunotherapies for brain tumors, including the need for more representative animal models that can better foreshadow human trial outcomes. Tumor and tumor microenvironment biopsies with multiomic analysis are critical to understand mechanisms of response and patient stratification, yet brain tumors are especially challenging for such biopsy collection. These workshop proceedings and commentary shed light on the status of immunotherapy in pediatric and adult brain tumor patients, including current research as well as opportunities for improving future efforts to bring immunotherapy to the forefront in the management of brain tumors.

Gemogenovatucel-T (Vigil) immunotherapy demonstrates clinical benefit in homologous recombination proficient (HRP) ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, Vigil showed significant clinical benefit with improvement in relapse free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in pre-planned subgroup analysis in stage III/IV newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients with BRCA wild type (BRCA-wt) molecular profile. Here we analyze homologous recombination (HR) status of patients enrolled in the Phase 2b VITAL study and determine clinical benefit of Vigil in HR proficient (P) patients. METHODS: Patients were previously enrolled in a Phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. All were in complete response with Stage III/IV high grade serious, endometroid or clear cell ovarian cancer. HR status was determined using MyChoice®CDx score (<42 = HRP) (Myriad Genetics, Inc., UT). Post-hoc analyses were carried out using Kaplan Meier and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis to evaluate RFS and OS based on HR deficiency (D) status. RESULTS: RFS was improved with Vigil (n = 25) in HRP patients compared to placebo (n = 20) (HR = 0.386; 90% CI 0.199-0.750; p = 0.007), results were verified by RMST (p = 0.017). Similarly, OS benefit was observed in Vigil group compared to placebo (HR = 0.342; 90% CI 0.141-0.832; p = 0.019). Results with OS were also verified with RMST (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Vigil exhibited clinical benefit in HRP molecular profile patients.

A phase 1 and randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of bevacizumab plus dasatinib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: Alliance/North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0872.

BACKGROUND: Src signaling is markedly upregulated in patients with invasive glioblastoma (GBM) after the administration of bevacizumab. The Src family kinase inhibitor dasatinib has been found to effectively block bevacizumab-induced glioma invasion in preclinical models, which led to the hypothesis that combining bevacizumab with dasatinib could increase bevacizumab efficacy in patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: After the completion of the phase 1 component, the phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00892177) randomized patients with recurrent GBM 2:1 to receive 100 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B) on days 1 to 14 of each 14-day cycle combined with 10 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). RESULTS: In the 121 evaluable patients, the PFS6 rate was numerically, but not statistically, higher in arm A versus arm B (28.9% [95% CI, 19.5%-40.0%] vs 18.4% [95% CI, 7.7%-34.4%]; P = .22). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the median overall survival noted between the treatment arms (7.3 months and 7.7 months, respectively; P = .93). The objective response rate was 15.7% in arm A and 26.3% in arm B (P = .52), but with a significantly longer duration in patients treated on arm A (16.3 months vs 2 months). The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was comparable between treatment arms, with hematologic toxicities occurring more frequently in arm A versus arm B (15.7% vs 7.9%) (adverse events were assessed as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Correlative tissue analysis demonstrated an association between pSRC/LYN signaling in patient tumors and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite upregulation of Src signaling in patients with GBM, the combination of bevacizumab with dasatinib did not appear to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with recurrent GBM compared with bevacizumab alone.

Correction to: Phase I-II trial of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec; STI571) in treatment of recurrent oligodendroglioma and mixed oligoastrocytoma. North central cancer treatment group study N0272 (ALLIANCE/NCCTG).

The last author's first name was truncated in the initial online publication. The original article has been corrected.

Phase I-II trial of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec; STI571) in treatment of recurrent oligodendroglioma and mixed oligoastrocytoma. North central cancer treatment group study N0272 (ALLIANCE/NCCTG).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of imatinib in patients with recurrent oligodendroglial tumors. METHODS: Patients with progressive WHO grade II-III recurrent tumors after prior RT and chemotherapy were eligible. A phase I dose-escalation study was conducted for patients on enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants (EIAC). A phase II study for non-EIAC patients utilized a fixed dose of 600 mg/D. Primary efficacy endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). A 2-stage design was utilized, with 90% power to detect PFS6 increase from 25 to 45%. RESULTS: In the Phase I, maximum tolerated dose was not reached at 1200 mg/D. For phase II patients, overall PFS6 was 33% and median PFS 4.0 months (95% CI 2.1, 5.7). Median overall survival (OS) was longer in imatinib-treated patients compared with controls (16.6 vs. 8.0 months; HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.0, p = 0.049), and longer in patients with 1p/19q-codeleted tumors (19.2 vs. 6.2 months, HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.21,0.89, p = 0.019). Confirmed response rate was 3.9% (PR = 1; REGR = 1), with stable disease observed in 52.9%. At 600 mg/D, mean steady-state imatinib plasma concentration was 2513 ng/ml (95% CI 1831,3195). Grade 3-4 adverse events (hematologic, fatigue, GI, hypophosphatemia, or hemorrhage) occurred in 61%. CONCLUSIONS: Although adequate plasma levels were achieved, the observed PFS6 of 33% did not reach our pre-defined threshold for success. Although OS was longer in imatinib-treated patients than controls, this finding would require forward validation in a larger cohort. Imatinib might show greater activity in a population enriched for PDGF-dependent pathway activation in tumor tissue.

NOTCH3 expression is linked to breast cancer seeding and distant metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Development of distant metastases involves a complex multistep biological process termed the invasion-metastasis cascade, which includes dissemination of cancer cells from the primary tumor to secondary organs. NOTCH developmental signaling plays a critical role in promoting epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, tumor stemness, and metastasis. Although all four NOTCH receptors show oncogenic properties, the unique role of each of these receptors in the sequential stepwise events that typify the invasion-metastasis cascade remains elusive. METHODS: We have established metastatic xenografts expressing high endogenous levels of NOTCH3 using estrogen receptor alpha-positive (ERα+) MCF-7 breast cancer cells with constitutive active Raf-1/mitogen-associated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling (vMCF-7Raf-1) and MDA-MB-231 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells. The critical role of NOTCH3 in inducing an invasive phenotype and poor outcome was corroborated in unique TNBC cells resulting from a patient-derived brain metastasis (TNBC-M25) and in publicly available claudin-low breast tumor specimens collected from participants in the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium database. RESULTS: In this study, we identified an association between NOTCH3 expression and development of metastases in ERα+ and TNBC models. ERα+ breast tumor xenografts with a constitutive active Raf-1/MAPK signaling developed spontaneous lung metastases through the clonal expansion of cancer cells expressing a NOTCH3 reprogramming network. Abrogation of NOTCH3 expression significantly reduced the self-renewal and invasive capacity of ex vivo breast cancer cells, restoring a luminal CD44low/CD24high/ERαhigh phenotype. Forced expression of the mitotic Aurora kinase A (AURKA), which promotes breast cancer metastases, failed to restore the invasive capacity of NOTCH3-null cells, demonstrating that NOTCH3 expression is required for an invasive phenotype. Likewise, pharmacologic inhibition of NOTCH signaling also impaired TNBC cell seeding and metastatic growth. Significantly, the role of aberrant NOTCH3 expression in promoting tumor self-renewal, invasiveness, and poor outcome was corroborated in unique TNBC cells from a patient-derived brain metastasis and in publicly available claudin-low breast tumor specimens. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the key role of NOTCH3 oncogenic signaling in the genesis of breast cancer metastasis and provide a compelling preclinical rationale for the design of novel therapeutic strategies that will selectively target NOTCH3 to halt metastatic seeding and to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with breast cancer.

Phase 1/2 trial of temsirolimus and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study/Alliance N0572.

BACKGROUND: Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-dependent signaling are hallmarks of glioblastoma. In the current study, the authors conducted a phase 1/2 study of sorafenib (an inhibitor of Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 [VEGFR-2]) and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. METHODS: Patients with recurrent glioblastoma who developed disease progression after surgery or radiotherapy plus temozolomide and with ≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. The phase 1 endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), using a cohorts-of-3 design. The 2-stage phase 2 study included separate arms for VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi)-naive patients and patients who progressed after prior VEGFi. RESULTS: The MTD was sorafenib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus at a dose of 20 mg weekly. In the first 41 evaluable patients who were treated at the phase 2 dose, there were 7 who were free of disease progression at 6 months (progression-free survival at 6 months [PFS6]) in the VEGFi-naive group (17.1%); this finding met the prestudy threshold of success. In the prior VEGFi group, only 4 of the first 41 evaluable patients treated at the phase 2 dose achieved PFS6 (9.8%), and this did not meet the prestudy threshold for success. The median PFS for the 2 groups was 2.6 months and 1.9 months, respectively. The median overall survival for the 2 groups was 6.3 months and 3.9 months, respectively. At least 1 adverse event of grade ≥3 was observed in 75.5% of the VEGFi-naive patients and in 73.9% of the prior VEGFi patients. CONCLUSIONS: The limited activity of sorafenib and temsirolimus at the dose and schedule used in the current study was observed with considerable toxicity of grade ≥3. Significant dose reductions that were required in this treatment combination compared with tolerated single-agent doses may have contributed to the lack of efficacy. Cancer 2018;124:1455-63. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery compared with whole brain radiotherapy for resected metastatic brain disease (NCCTG N107C/CEC·3): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is the standard of care to improve intracranial control following resection of brain metastasis. However, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the surgical cavity is widely used in an attempt to reduce cognitive toxicity, despite the absence of high-level comparative data substantiating efficacy in the postoperative setting. We aimed to establish the effect of SRS on survival and cognitive outcomes compared with WBRT in patients with resected brain metastasis. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, adult patients (aged 18 years or older) from 48 institutions in the USA and Canada with one resected brain metastasis and a resection cavity less than 5·0 cm in maximal extent were randomly assigned (1:1) to either postoperative SRS (12-20 Gy single fraction with dose determined by surgical cavity volume) or WBRT (30 Gy in ten daily fractions or 37·5 Gy in 15 daily fractions of 2·5 Gy; fractionation schedule predetermined for all patients at treating centre). We randomised patients using a dynamic allocation strategy with stratification factors of age, duration of extracranial disease control, number of brain metastases, histology, maximal resection cavity diameter, and treatment centre. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were cognitive-deterioration-free survival and overall survival, and analyses were done by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01372774. FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2011, and Nov 16, 2015, 194 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to SRS (98 patients) or WBRT (96 patients). Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 5·1-18·0). Cognitive-deterioration-free survival was longer in patients assigned to SRS (median 3·7 months [95% CI 3·45-5·06], 93 events) than in patients assigned to WBRT (median 3·0 months [2·86-3·25], 93 events; hazard ratio [HR] 0·47 [95% CI 0·35-0·63]; p<0·0001), and cognitive deterioration at 6 months was less frequent in patients who received SRS than those who received WBRT (28 [52%] of 54 evaluable patients assigned to SRS vs 41 [85%] of 48 evaluable patients assigned to WBRT; difference -33·6% [95% CI -45·3 to -21·8], p<0·00031). Median overall survival was 12·2 months (95% CI 9·7-16·0, 69 deaths) for SRS and 11·6 months (9·9-18·0, 67 deaths) for WBRT (HR 1·07 [95% CI 0·76-1·50]; p=0·70). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported with a relative frequency greater than 4% were hearing impairment (three [3%] of 93 patients in the SRS group vs eight [9%] of 92 patients in the WBRT group) and cognitive disturbance (three [3%] vs five [5%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Decline in cognitive function was more frequent with WBRT than with SRS and there was no difference in overall survival between the treatment groups. After resection of a brain metastasis, SRS radiosurgery should be considered one of the standards of care as a less toxic alternative to WBRT for this patient population. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Endogenous Heat-Shock Protein Induction with or Without Radiofrequency Ablation or Cryoablation in Patients with Stage IV Melanoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Percutaneous thermal ablation combined with in situ granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor cytokine therapy was technically feasible and well tolerated.No significant clinical or immunologic responses were seen. BACKGROUND: Melanoma tumor-derived heat-shock proteins (HSPs) and HSP-peptide complexes can elicit protective antitumor responses. The granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) chemokine can also promote uptake and processing by professional antigen presenting cells (APCs). On this basis, we designed a pilot study of percutaneous thermal ablation as a means to induce heat-shock protein vaccination plus GM-CSF to determine safety and preliminary antitumor activity of this combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was designed to assess overall safety of percutaneous ablation combined with GM-CSF for unresectable, metastatic melanoma including uveal and mucosal types. All patients received heat-shock therapy (42°C for 30 minutes), then received one of three treatments: (a) intralesional GM-CSF (500 mcg standard dose); (b) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) + GM-CSF; or (c) cryoablation plus GM-CSF. The primary endpoint of the study was the induction of endogenous HSP70 and melanoma-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). RESULTS: Nine patients (three per study arm) were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed as specified per protocol. All patients developed progressive disease and went on to receive alternative therapy. Median overall survival (OS) was 8.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2-17.2). The study was not powered to detect a difference in clinical outcome among treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous thermal ablation plus GM-CSF was well tolerated, technically feasible, and demonstrated an acceptable adverse event profile comparable to conventional RFA and cryoablation. While HSP70 was induced following therapy, the degree of HSP70 elevation was not associated with clinical outcome or induced CTL responses. While percutaneous thermal ablation plus GM-CSF combinations including checkpoint inhibitors could be considered in future studies, the use of GM-CSF remains experimental and for use in the context of clinical trials.

Radiation-agent combinations for glioblastoma: challenges in drug development and future considerations.

Glioblastoma is an aggressive disease characterized by moderate initial response rates to first-line radiation-chemotherapy intervention followed by low poor response rates to second-line intervention. This article discusses novel strategic platforms for the development of radiation-investigational agent combination clinical trials for primary and recurrent glioblastoma in a NCI-NCTN settings with simultaneous analysis of challenges in the drug development process.

Leptomeningeal metastases of solid cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent original data on leptomeningeal metastases in patients with solid cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Lung and breast cancer as well as melanoma remain the most common primaries. Advanced cytological methods and targeted sequencing for candidate tumor-specific mutations may improve the sensitivity of cerebrospinal fluid diagnostics in leptomeningeal metastases. Targeted treatments like epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer, anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 treatments for breast cancer or B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma-targeted or immunotherapy for melanoma have an emerging role in the management of this condition. SUMMARY: Novel diagnostic approaches and the introduction of targeted agents may improve the clinical management of patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers.

Effect of Radiosurgery Alone vs Radiosurgery With Whole Brain Radiation Therapy on Cognitive Function in Patients With 1 to 3 Brain Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) significantly improves tumor control in the brain after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), yet because of its association with cognitive decline, its role in the treatment of patients with brain metastases remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone vs SRS plus WBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: At 34 institutions in North America, patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases were randomized to receive SRS or SRS plus WBRT between February 2002 and December 2013. INTERVENTIONS: The WBRT dose schedule was 30 Gy in 12 fractions; the SRS dose was 18 to 22 Gy in the SRS plus WBRT group and 20 to 24 Gy for SRS alone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was cognitive deterioration (decline >1 SD from baseline on at least 1 cognitive test at 3 months) in participants who completed the baseline and 3-month assessments. Secondary end points included time to intracranial failure, quality of life, functional independence, long-term cognitive status, and overall survival. RESULTS: There were 213 randomized participants (SRS alone, n = 111; SRS plus WBRT, n = 102) with a mean age of 60.6 years (SD, 10.5 years); 103 (48%) were women. There was less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone (40/63 patients [63.5%]) than when combined with WBRT (44/48 patients [91.7%]; difference, -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P < .001). Quality of life was higher at 3 months with SRS alone, including overall quality of life (mean change from baseline, -0.1 vs -12.0 points; mean difference, 11.9; 95% CI, 4.8-19.0 points; P = .001). Time to intracranial failure was significantly shorter for SRS alone compared with SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001). There was no significant difference in functional independence at 3 months between the treatment groups (mean change from baseline, -1.5 points for SRS alone vs -4.2 points for SRS plus WBRT; mean difference, 2.7 points; 95% CI, -2.0 to 7.4 points; P = .26). Median overall survival was 10.4 months for SRS alone and 7.4 months for SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.38; P = .92). For long-term survivors, the incidence of cognitive deterioration was less after SRS alone at 3 months (5/11 [45.5%] vs 16/17 [94.1%]; difference, -48.7%; 95% CI, -87.6% to -9.7%; P = .007) and at 12 months (6/10 [60%] vs 17/18 [94.4%]; difference, -34.4%; 95% CI, -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases, the use of SRS alone, compared with SRS combined with WBRT, resulted in less cognitive deterioration at 3 months. In the absence of a difference in overall survival, these findings suggest that for patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases amenable to radiosurgery, SRS alone may be a preferred strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00377156.