PURPOSE: To assess whether reirradiation (re-RT) and concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) improve overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS), compared with BEV alone in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). The primary objective was OS, and secondary objectives included PFS, response rate, and treatment adverse events (AEs) including delayed CNS toxicities.METHODS: NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is a prospective, phase II, randomized trial of re-RT and BEV versus BEV alone. Stratification factors included age, resection, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Patients with recurrent GBM with imaging evidence of tumor progression ≥ 6 months from completion of prior chemo-RT were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to re-RT, 35 Gy in 10 fractions, with concurrent BEV IV 10 mg/kg once in every 2 weeks or BEV alone until progression.RESULTS: From December 2012 to April 2016, 182 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 170 were eligible. Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms. The median follow-up for censored patients was 12.8 months. There was no improvement in OS for BEV + RT, hazard ratio, 0.98; 80% CI, 0.79 to 1.23; P = .46; the median survival time was 10.1 versus 9.7 months for BEV + RT versus BEV alone. The median PFS for BEV + RT was 7.1 versus 3.8 months for BEV, hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.0; P = .05. The 6-month PFS rate improved from 29.1% (95% CI, 19.1 to 39.1) for BEV to 54.3% (95% CI, 43.5 to 65.1) for BEV + RT, P = .001. Treatment was well tolerated. There were a 5% rate of acute grade 3+ treatment-related AEs and no delayed high-grade AEs. Most patients died of recurrent GBM.CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is the first prospective, randomized multi-institutional study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of re-RT in recurrent GBM using modern RT techniques. Overall, re-RT was shown to be safe and well tolerated. BEV + RT demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, specifically the 6-month PFS rate but no difference in OS.

Purpose: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) integrate clinical, molecular, and radiological information and facilitate coordination of neuro-oncology care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, our MTB transitioned to a virtual and multi-institutional format. We hypothesized that this expansion would allow expert review of challenging neuro-oncology cases and contribute to the care of patients with limited access to specialized centers. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records from virtual MTBs held between 04/2020–03/2021. Data collected included measures of potential clinical impact, including referrals to observational or therapeutic studies, referrals for specialized neuropathology analysis, and whether molecular findings led to a change in diagnosis and/or guided management suggestions. Results: During 25 meetings, 32 presenters discussed 44 cases. Approximately half (n = 20; 48%) involved a rare central nervous system (CNS) tumor. In 21% (n = 9) the diagnosis was changed or refined based on molecular profiling obtained at the NIH and in 36% (n = 15) molecular findings guided management. Clinical trial suggestions were offered to 31% (n = 13), enrollment in the observational NCI Natural History Study to 21% (n = 9), neuropathology review and molecular testing at the NIH to 17% (n = 7), and all received management suggestions. Conclusion: Virtual multi-institutional MTBs enable remote expert review of CNS tumors. We propose them as a strategy to facilitate expert opinions from specialized centers, especially for rare CNS tumors, helping mitigate geographic barriers to patient care and serving as a pre-screening tool for studies. Advanced molecular testing is key to obtaining a precise diagnosis, discovering potentially actionable targets, and guiding management.

To evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) and irinotecan (CPT-11) for 12 months after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). Trial RTOG 04-20, a single-arm, multi-institutional phase 2 trial, was designed to determine the efficacy and toxicity of concomitant TMZ and radiation therapy (RT) followed by adjuvant TMZ combined with CPT-11 given for 12 cycles compared with historical controls of adjuvant TMZ alone given for 6 cycles. A total of 170 patients were enrolled, 152 of whom were eligible. Adjuvant CPT-11 combined with TMZ was more toxic than expected. A higher rate of hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities was more frequently noted with the combination regimen compared with adjuvant TMZ alone. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was 38% compared with 14% reported in the Stupp trial. After an early interim analysis, the adjuvant CPT-11 dose was reduced to 100 mg/m² on days 1 and 5 for the first cycle. CPT-11 dose escalation proceeded over the first 3 cycles if tolerated. Median overall survival for all eligible patients was 16.9 months compared with 13.7 months of the historical control (P = .03). Post hoc subgroup analysis suggested an improvement in overall survival for patients with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning analysis class 3, although improvement was limited to 22 patients (14% of eligible patients). Although irinotecan and TMZ for 12 cycles given after chemoradiation for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma significantly improved median survival compared with historical control data at the time the study was conducted, the historical control median survival time of 13.7 months does not represent the current benchmark for this patient population. Treatment intensification does prolong overall survival compared with the current standard.