Undetected pseudoprogressions in the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial: hints from postprogression survival and MRI analyses.

PURPOSE: In the randomized CeTeG/NOA-09 trial, lomustine/temozolomide (CCNU/TMZ) was superior to TMZ therapy regarding overall survival (OS) in MGMT promotor-methylated glioblastoma. Progression-free survival (PFS) and pseudoprogression rates (about 10%) were similar in both arms. Further evaluating this discrepancy, we analyzed patterns of postprogression survival (PPS) and MRI features at first progression according to modified RANO criteria (mRANO). METHODS: We classified the patients of the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial according to long vs. short PPS employing a cut-off of 18 months and compared baseline characteristics and survival times. In patients with available MRIs and confirmed progression, the increase in T1-enhancing, FLAIR hyperintense lesion volume and the change in ADC mean value of contrast-enhancing tumor upon progression were determined. RESULTS: Patients with long PPS in the CCNU/TMZ arm had a particularly short PFS (5.6 months). PFS in this subgroup was shorter than in the long PPS subgroup of the TMZ arm (11.1 months, p = 0.01). At mRANO-defined progression, patients of the CCNU/TMZ long PPS subgroup had a significantly higher increase of mean ADC values (p = 0.015) and a tendency to a stronger volumetric increase in T1-enhancement (p = 0.22) as compared to long PPS patients of the TMZ arm. CONCLUSION: The combination of survival and MRI analyses identified a subgroup of CCNU/TMZ-treated patients with features that sets them apart from other patients in the trial: short first PFS despite long PPS and significant increase in mean ADC values upon mRANO-defined progression. The observed pattern is compatible with the features commonly observed in pseudoprogression suggesting mRANO-undetected pseudoprogressions in the CCNU/TMZ arm of CeTeG/NOA-09.

A novel serum extracellular vesicle protein signature to monitor glioblastoma tumor progression.

Detection of tumor progression in patients with glioblastoma remains a major challenge. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are potential biomarkers and can be detected in the blood of patients with glioblastoma. In our study, we evaluated the potential of serum-derived EVs from glioblastoma patients to serve as biomarker for tumor progression. EVs from serum of glioblastoma patients and healthy volunteers were separated by size exclusion chromatography and ultracentrifugation. EV markers were defined by using a proximity-extension assay and bead-based flow cytometry. Tumor progression was defined according to modified RANO criteria. EVs from the serum of glioblastoma patients (n = 67) showed an upregulation of CD29, CD44, CD81, CD146, C1QA and histone H3 as compared to serum EVs from healthy volunteers (P value range: <.0001 to .08). For two independent cohorts of glioblastoma patients, we noted upregulation of C1QA, CD44 and histone H3 upon tumor progression, but not in patients with stable disease. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, a combination of CD29, CD44, CD81, C1QA and histone H3 correlated with RANO-defined tumor progression with an AUC of 0.76. Measurement of CD29, CD44, CD81, C1QA and histone H3 in serum-derived EVs of glioblastoma patients, along with standard MRI assessment, has the potential to improve detection of true tumor progression and thus could be a useful biomarker for clinical decision making.

Chemotherapy for adult patients with spinal cord gliomas.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of spinal cord gliomas, particularly in adults is low, and the role of chemotherapy has remained unclear. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of 21 patients diagnosed with spinal cord glioma who received chemotherapy at any time during the disease course. Benefit from chemotherapy was estimated by magnetic resonance imaging. Data on radiotherapy were taken into consideration. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were diagnosed with astrocytic gliomas World Health Organization (WHO) grades 1-4, the remaining eight patients with ependymomas WHO grades 1 or 3. Most patients had more than one neurosurgical intervention. Median age at time of first chemotherapy was 33 years (range 21-67 years). Seven patients had chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy as first-line treatment. Two patients had chemoradiotherapy at recurrence, without prior tumor-specific treatment beyond surgery. One patient received chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment and 2 patients had chemotherapy alone at recurrence, without prior treatment. Nine patients had received radiation therapy at an earlier time and chemotherapy was given at time of further recurrences. Best responses in astrocytomas were as follows: chemotherapy alone-2 stable disease (SD) and 3 progressive disease (PD); chemoradiotherapy-1 complete response, 3 SD, and 4 PD. Best responses in ependymomas were as follows: chemotherapy alone-1 partial response, 5 SD, and 1 PD; chemoradiotherapy-1 SD. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal cord gliomas represent a heterogeneous group of tumors. Survival outcomes in response to chemotherapy in adult spinal cord glioma patients vary substantially, but individual patients appear to derive benefit from chemotherapy.

MGMT promoter methylation analysis for allocating combined CCNU/TMZ chemotherapy: Lessons learned from the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial.

The CeTeG/NOA-09 trial showed a survival benefit for combined CCNU/TMZ therapy in MGMT-promoter-methylated glioblastoma patients (quantitative methylation-specific PCR [qMSP] ratio > 2). Here, we report on the prognostic value of the MGMT promoter methylation ratio determined by qMSP and evaluate the concordance of MGMT methylation results obtained by qMSP, pyrosequencing (PSQ) or DNA methylation arrays (MGMT-STP27). A potential association of qMSP ratio with survival was analyzed in the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial population (n = 129; log-rank tests, Cox regression analyses). The concordance of MGMT methylation assays (qMSP, PSQ and MGMT-STP27) was evaluated in 76 screened patients. Patients with tumors of qMSP ratio > 4 showed superior survival compared to those with ratios 2-4 (P = .0251, log-rank test). In multivariate analysis, the qMSP ratio was not prognostic across the study cohort (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72-1.08). With different cutoffs for qMSP ratio (4, 9, 12 or 25), the CCNU/TMZ benefit tended to be larger in subgroups with lower ratios (eg, for cutoff 9: HR 0.32 for lower subgroup, 0.73 for higher subgroup). The concordance rates with qMSP were 94.4% (PSQ) and 90.2% (MGMT-STP27). Discordant results were restricted to tumors with qMSP ratios ≤4 and PSQ mean methylation rate ≤25%. Despite a shorter survival in MGMT-promoter-methylated patients with lower methylation according to qMSP, these patients had a benefit from combined CCNU/TMZ therapy, which even tended to be stronger than in patients with higher methylation rates. With acceptable concordance rates, decisions on CCNU/TMZ therapy may also be based on PSQ or MGMT-STP27.

Health-related quality of life and neurocognitive functioning with lomustine-temozolomide versus temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed, MGMT-methylated glioblastoma (CeTeG/NOA-09): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CeTeG/NOA-09 trial showed significantly longer overall survival with combined lomustine-temozolomide therapy compared with standard temozolomide for patients with glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. The trial also aimed to investigate the effect of lomustine-temozolomide therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and neurocognitive function, which we report here. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial, newly diagnosed, chemoradiotherapy-naive patients with MGMT-methylated glioblastoma, aged 18-70 years, with a Karnofsky performance score of 70% or higher, were recruited and enrolled at 17 university hospitals in Germany. Patients received standard radiotherapy (60 Gy) and were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by centre by allocating complete blocks of six to a centre, without masking) to either six 6-week courses of oral combined lomustine (100 mg/m2 on day 1) plus temozolomide (100-200 mg/m2 on days 2-6) or standard oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 daily during radiotherapy plus six 4-week courses of temozolomide [150-200 mg/m2] on days 1-5, every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was overall survival. HRQOL, assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire core-30 and the EORTC brain cancer module (BN20); and neurocognitive function, assessed using the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), plus a neurocognitive test battery (NOA-07), including Trail Making Test A and B (TMT-A and B), working memory tests, and tests for lexical (Controlled Oral Word Association [COWA]) and semantic verbal fluency, were secondary endpoints analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT; all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study chemotherapy). We used linear mixed-model analyses to investigate differences between treatment groups regarding HRQOL (clinically relevant ≥10 points) and MMSE scores (clinically relevant ≥3 points). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01149109. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2011 and April 8, 2014, 141 patients were randomly assigned and 129 patients began treatment and were included in the mITT population (63 in the temozolomide and 66 in the lomustine-temozolomide group). Median follow-up for HRQOL (the item global health) was 19·4 months (IQR 7·8-38·6), for MMSE was 15·3 months (4·1-29·6), and for COWA was 11·0 months (0-27·5). We found no significant impairment regarding any item of HRQOL in the lomustine-temozolomide group (difference between the groups for global health 0·30 [95% CI -0·23 to 0·83]; p=0·26). Differences in MMSE were in favour of the temozolomide group (difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·19 to -0·03]; p=0·0058) but were not clinically relevant (1·76/30 points over 4 years). We found no significant difference between the groups in any subtest of the neurocognitive test battery (difference for COWA 0·04 [95% CI -0·01 to 0·09]; p=0·14). INTERPRETATION: The absence of systematic and clinically relevant changes in HRQOL and neurocognitive function combined with the survival benefit of lomustine-temozolomide versus temozolomide alone suggests that a long-term net clinical benefit exists for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylation of the MGMT promoter and supports the use of lomustine-temozolomide as a treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Lomustine-temozolomide combination therapy versus standard temozolomide therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CeTeG/NOA-09): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for more effective therapies for glioblastoma. Data from a previous unrandomised phase 2 trial suggested that lomustine-temozolomide plus radiotherapy might be superior to temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylation of the MGMT promoter. In the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial, we aimed to further investigate the effect of lomustine-temozolomide therapy in the setting of a randomised phase 3 trial. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients from 17 German university hospitals who were aged 18-70 years, with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter, and a Karnofsky Performance Score of 70% and higher. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a predefined SAS-generated randomisation list to standard temozolomide chemoradiotherapy (75 mg/m2 per day concomitant to radiotherapy [59-60 Gy] followed by six courses of temozolomide 150-200 mg/m2 per day on the first 5 days of the 4-week course) or to up to six courses of lomustine (100 mg/m2 on day 1) plus temozolomide (100-200 mg/m2 per day on days 2-6 of the 6-week course) in addition to radiotherapy (59-60 Gy). Because of the different schedules, patients and physicians were not masked to treatment groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the modified intention-to-treat population, comprising all randomly assigned patients who started their allocated chemotherapy. The prespecified test for overall survival differences was a log-rank test stratified for centre and recursive partitioning analysis class. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01149109. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2011, and April 8, 2014, 141 patients were randomly assigned to the treatment groups; 129 patients (63 in the temozolomide and 66 in the lomustine-temozolomide group) constituted the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was improved from 31·4 months (95% CI 27·7-47·1) with temozolomide to 48·1 months (32·6 months-not assessable) with lomustine-temozolomide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·35-1·03; p=0·0492 for log-rank analysis). A significant overall survival difference between groups was also found in a secondary analysis of the intention-to-treat population (n=141, HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·35-1·03; p=0·0432 for log-rank analysis). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed in 32 (51%) of 63 patients in the temozolomide group and 39 (59%) of 66 patients in the lomustine-temozolomide group. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that lomustine-temozolomide chemotherapy might improve survival compared with temozolomide standard therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. The findings should be interpreted with caution, owing to the small size of the trial. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

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.