Mustafa Khasraw

Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as "recruiting" or "not yet recruiting" as of February 2021.

Despite the important evolution of immunotherapeutic agents, brain tumors remain, in general, refractory to immune therapeutics. Recent discoveries have revealed that the glioma microenvironment includes a wide variety of immune cells in various states that play an important role in the process of tumorigenesis. Anti-tumor immune activity may be occurring or induced in immunogenic hot spots or at the invasive edge of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Understanding the complex heterogeneity of the immune microenvironment in gliomas will likely be the key to unlocking the full potential of immunotherapeutic strategies. An essential consideration will be the induction of immunological effector responses in the setting of the numerous aspects of immunosuppression and evasion. As such, immune therapeutic combinations are a fundamental objective for clinical studies in gliomas. Through immune profiling conducted on immune competent murine models of glioma and ex vivo human glioma tissue, we will discuss how the frequency, distribution of immune cells within the microenvironment, and immune modulatory processes, may be therapeutically modulated to lead to clinical benefits.

Clinical trials that have a pharmacokinetic or a pharmacodynamic immunologic mechanism of action-based primary outcome could substantially improve the validity and efficiency of early development of immuno-oncology agents. Here, we outline different trial design options in this area, review examples from the literature and their unique immunologic aspects, and highlight how these trials have been underutilized. We illustrate how new technologies and translationally focused approaches can be successfully used to develop different classes of immunotherapeutic agents.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel-novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel-novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel-novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design.