Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Current Oncology Reports 1/2013

01-02-2013 | Neuro-oncology (MR Gilbert, Section Editor)

Incorporation of Prognostic and Predictive Factors Into Glioma Clinical Trials

Authors: Derek R. Johnson, Evanthia Galanis

Published in: Current Oncology Reports | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Treatment of brain tumors is increasingly informed by biomarkers that predict patient prognosis and response to therapy. While this progress represents a great opportunity for the field of neuro-oncology, it also presents significant challenges. Biomarkers are not straightforward to identify, and previously used clinical trial paradigms are poorly suited to the task of identifying treatments effective only in selected subsets of patients. Unless investigators adapt new tools and procedures that better account for the biological diversity of gliomas, future clinical trials run the dual risk of missing important treatment effects and exposing patients to interventions destined to prove ineffective for their tumors. In this article, we will review the progress made in the past decade with respect to biomarkers in neuro-oncology, address barriers to ongoing progress, and discuss clinical trial designs that may prove useful in moving neuro-oncology fully into the era of personalized medicine.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Conley BA, Taube SE. Prognostic and predictive markers in cancer. Dis Markers. 2004;20:35–43.PubMed Conley BA, Taube SE. Prognostic and predictive markers in cancer. Dis Markers. 2004;20:35–43.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Romond EH, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1673–84.PubMedCrossRef Romond EH, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1673–84.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference McShane LM, et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1180–4.PubMedCrossRef McShane LM, et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1180–4.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Stupp R, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:987–96.PubMedCrossRef Stupp R, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:987–96.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hegi ME, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:997–1003.PubMedCrossRef Hegi ME, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:997–1003.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Stupp R, et al. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:459–66.PubMedCrossRef Stupp R, et al. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:459–66.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ahluwalia MS. American society of clinical oncology 2011 CNS tumors update. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11:1495–7.PubMedCrossRef Ahluwalia MS. American society of clinical oncology 2011 CNS tumors update. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11:1495–7.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Malmstrom A, et al. Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:916–26.PubMedCrossRef Malmstrom A, et al. Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:916–26.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference • Wick W, et al. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:707–15. Multicenter randomized trial demonstrating that MGMT methylation is predictive of treatment response in elderly patients with glioblastoma.PubMedCrossRef • Wick W, et al. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:707–15. Multicenter randomized trial demonstrating that MGMT methylation is predictive of treatment response in elderly patients with glioblastoma.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Reifenberger J, et al. Molecular genetic analysis of oligodendroglial tumors shows preferential allelic deletions on 19q and 1p. Am J Pathol. 1994;145:1175–90.PubMed Reifenberger J, et al. Molecular genetic analysis of oligodendroglial tumors shows preferential allelic deletions on 19q and 1p. Am J Pathol. 1994;145:1175–90.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Cairncross G, et al. Phase III trial of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for pure and mixed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 9402. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2707–14.PubMedCrossRef Cairncross G, et al. Phase III trial of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for pure and mixed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 9402. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2707–14.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference van den Bent MJ, et al. Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: a randomized European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2715–22.PubMedCrossRef van den Bent MJ, et al. Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: a randomized European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2715–22.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Cairncross G, et al. Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (CT-RT) versus RT alone for patients with anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term results of the RTOG 9402 phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl; abstr 2008b). Cairncross G, et al. Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (CT-RT) versus RT alone for patients with anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term results of the RTOG 9402 phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl; abstr 2008b).
15.
go back to reference Van den Bent MJ, et al. Long-term follow-up results of EORTC 26951: a randomized phase III study on adjuvant PCV chemotherapy in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOD). J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl; abstr 2). Van den Bent MJ, et al. Long-term follow-up results of EORTC 26951: a randomized phase III study on adjuvant PCV chemotherapy in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOD). J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl; abstr 2).
16.
18.
go back to reference Fallon KB, et al. Prognostic value of 1p, 19q, 9p, 10q, and EGFR-FISH analyses in recurrent oligodendrogliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2004;63:314–22.PubMed Fallon KB, et al. Prognostic value of 1p, 19q, 9p, 10q, and EGFR-FISH analyses in recurrent oligodendrogliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2004;63:314–22.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Felsberg J, et al. Oligodendroglial tumors: refinement of candidate regions on chromosome arm 1p and correlation of 1p/19q status with survival. Brain Pathol. 2004;14:121–30.PubMedCrossRef Felsberg J, et al. Oligodendroglial tumors: refinement of candidate regions on chromosome arm 1p and correlation of 1p/19q status with survival. Brain Pathol. 2004;14:121–30.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kouwenhoven MC, et al. 1p/19q loss within oligodendroglioma is predictive for response to first line temozolomide but not to salvage treatment. European J Cancer. 2006;42:2499–503.CrossRef Kouwenhoven MC, et al. 1p/19q loss within oligodendroglioma is predictive for response to first line temozolomide but not to salvage treatment. European J Cancer. 2006;42:2499–503.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mariani L, et al. Loss of heterozygosity 1p36 and 19q13 is a prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with diffuse WHO grade 2 gliomas treated without chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4758–63.PubMedCrossRef Mariani L, et al. Loss of heterozygosity 1p36 and 19q13 is a prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with diffuse WHO grade 2 gliomas treated without chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4758–63.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Shaw EG, et al. Randomized trial of radiation therapy plus procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy for supratentorial adult low-grade glioma: initial results of RTOG 9802. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3065–70.PubMedCrossRef Shaw EG, et al. Randomized trial of radiation therapy plus procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy for supratentorial adult low-grade glioma: initial results of RTOG 9802. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3065–70.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Parsons DW, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science. 2008;321:1807–12.PubMedCrossRef Parsons DW, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science. 2008;321:1807–12.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Desestret V, et al. Prognostic stratification of gliomatosis cerebri by IDH1 R132H and INA expression. J Neurooncol. 2011;105:219–24.PubMedCrossRef Desestret V, et al. Prognostic stratification of gliomatosis cerebri by IDH1 R132H and INA expression. J Neurooncol. 2011;105:219–24.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Houillier C, et al. IDH1 or IDH2 mutations predict longer survival and response to temozolomide in low-grade gliomas. Neurology. 2010;75:1560–6.PubMedCrossRef Houillier C, et al. IDH1 or IDH2 mutations predict longer survival and response to temozolomide in low-grade gliomas. Neurology. 2010;75:1560–6.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kwon MJ, et al. Mutated IDH1 is a favorable prognostic factor for type 2 gliomatosis cerebri. Brain Pathol. 2012;22:307–17.PubMedCrossRef Kwon MJ, et al. Mutated IDH1 is a favorable prognostic factor for type 2 gliomatosis cerebri. Brain Pathol. 2012;22:307–17.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Myung JK, et al. IDH1 mutation of gliomas with long-term survival analysis. Oncol Rep. 2012;28(5):1639–44. Myung JK, et al. IDH1 mutation of gliomas with long-term survival analysis. Oncol Rep. 2012;28(5):1639–44.
29.
go back to reference Olar A, et al. Absence of IDH1-R132H mutation predicts rapid progression of nonenhancing diffuse glioma in older adults. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2012;16:161–70.PubMedCrossRef Olar A, et al. Absence of IDH1-R132H mutation predicts rapid progression of nonenhancing diffuse glioma in older adults. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2012;16:161–70.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Shibahara I, et al. IDH1/2 gene status defines the prognosis and molecular profiles in patients with grade III gliomas. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011. Shibahara I, et al. IDH1/2 gene status defines the prognosis and molecular profiles in patients with grade III gliomas. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011.
31.
go back to reference Takano S, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of IDH1 mutation, p53, and internexin as prognostic factors of glial tumors. J Neurooncol. 2012;108:361–73.PubMedCrossRef Takano S, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of IDH1 mutation, p53, and internexin as prognostic factors of glial tumors. J Neurooncol. 2012;108:361–73.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Turcan S, et al. IDH1 mutation is sufficient to establish the glioma hypermethylator phenotype. Nature. 2012;483:479–83.PubMedCrossRef Turcan S, et al. IDH1 mutation is sufficient to establish the glioma hypermethylator phenotype. Nature. 2012;483:479–83.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference van den Bent MJ, et al. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are prognostic but not predictive for outcome in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors: a report of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor Group. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1597–604.PubMedCrossRef van den Bent MJ, et al. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are prognostic but not predictive for outcome in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors: a report of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor Group. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1597–604.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Phillips HS, et al. Molecular subclasses of high-grade glioma predict prognosis, delineate a pattern of disease progression, and resemble stages in neurogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2006;9:157–73.PubMedCrossRef Phillips HS, et al. Molecular subclasses of high-grade glioma predict prognosis, delineate a pattern of disease progression, and resemble stages in neurogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2006;9:157–73.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Verhaak RG, et al. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010;17:98–110.PubMedCrossRef Verhaak RG, et al. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010;17:98–110.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Colman H, et al. A multigene predictor of outcome in glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology. 2010;12:49–57.PubMedCrossRef Colman H, et al. A multigene predictor of outcome in glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology. 2010;12:49–57.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Aldape K, et al. RTOG 0525: molecular correlates from a randomized phase III trial of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:(suppl; abstr LBA2000). Aldape K, et al. RTOG 0525: molecular correlates from a randomized phase III trial of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:(suppl; abstr LBA2000).
38.
go back to reference Quillien V, et al. Comparative assessment of 5 methods (methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction, methylight, pyrosequencing, methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting, and immunohistochemistry) to analyze O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltranferase in a series of 100 glioblastoma patients. Cancer. 2012;118:4201–11.PubMedCrossRef Quillien V, et al. Comparative assessment of 5 methods (methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction, methylight, pyrosequencing, methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting, and immunohistochemistry) to analyze O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltranferase in a series of 100 glioblastoma patients. Cancer. 2012;118:4201–11.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Clarke MJ, et al. Effective sensitization of temozolomide by ABT-888 is lost with development of temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma xenograft lines. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8:407–14.PubMedCrossRef Clarke MJ, et al. Effective sensitization of temozolomide by ABT-888 is lost with development of temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma xenograft lines. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8:407–14.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Berman E. Omacetaxine: the FDA decision. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2011;9:57–8.PubMed Berman E. Omacetaxine: the FDA decision. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2011;9:57–8.PubMed
41.
go back to reference Goozner M. Drug approvals 2011: focus on companion diagnostics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:84–6.PubMedCrossRef Goozner M. Drug approvals 2011: focus on companion diagnostics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:84–6.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Baker SG, et al. Biomarkers, subgroup evaluation, and clinical trial design. Discov Med. 2012;13:187–92.PubMed Baker SG, et al. Biomarkers, subgroup evaluation, and clinical trial design. Discov Med. 2012;13:187–92.PubMed
43.
go back to reference Mandrekar SJ, Sargent DJ. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4027–34.PubMedCrossRef Mandrekar SJ, Sargent DJ. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4027–34.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Sargent DJ, et al. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2020–7.PubMedCrossRef Sargent DJ, et al. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2020–7.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Sargent D, Allegra C. Issues in clinical trial design for tumor marker studies. Semin Oncol. 2002;29:222–30.PubMedCrossRef Sargent D, Allegra C. Issues in clinical trial design for tumor marker studies. Semin Oncol. 2002;29:222–30.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Freidlin B, McShane LM, Korn EL. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:152–60.PubMedCrossRef Freidlin B, McShane LM, Korn EL. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:152–60.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Sampson JH, et al. Immunologic escape after prolonged progression-free survival with epidermal growth factor receptor variant III peptide vaccination in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4722–9.PubMedCrossRef Sampson JH, et al. Immunologic escape after prolonged progression-free survival with epidermal growth factor receptor variant III peptide vaccination in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4722–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Sampson JH, et al. An epidermal growth factor receptor variant III-targeted vaccine is safe and immunogenic in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8:2773–9.PubMedCrossRef Sampson JH, et al. An epidermal growth factor receptor variant III-targeted vaccine is safe and immunogenic in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8:2773–9.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Bonetti M, Gelber RD. A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med. 2000;19:2595–609.PubMedCrossRef Bonetti M, Gelber RD. A graphical method to assess treatment-covariate interactions using the Cox model on subsets of the data. Stat Med. 2000;19:2595–609.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2004;5:465–81.PubMedCrossRef Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics. 2004;5:465–81.PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Cai T, et al. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011;12:270–82.PubMedCrossRef Cai T, et al. Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections. Biostatistics. 2011;12:270–82.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics. 2004;60:874–83.PubMedCrossRef Song X, Pepe MS. Evaluating markers for selecting a patient’s treatment. Biometrics. 2004;60:874–83.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Song X, Zhou XH. Evaluating markers for treatment selection based on survival time. Stat Med. 2011;30:2251–64.PubMedCrossRef Song X, Zhou XH. Evaluating markers for treatment selection based on survival time. Stat Med. 2011;30:2251–64.PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Barker AD, et al. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:97–100.PubMedCrossRef Barker AD, et al. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:97–100.PubMedCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Baker SG, Sargent DJ. Designing a randomized clinical trial to evaluate personalized medicine: a new approach based on risk prediction. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1756–9.PubMedCrossRef Baker SG, Sargent DJ. Designing a randomized clinical trial to evaluate personalized medicine: a new approach based on risk prediction. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1756–9.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference • Galanis E, et al. Phase 2 trial design in neuro-oncology revisited: a report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e196–204. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group position paper regarding future phase II trial designs, including importance of biomarker evaluation.PubMedCrossRef • Galanis E, et al. Phase 2 trial design in neuro-oncology revisited: a report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e196–204. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group position paper regarding future phase II trial designs, including importance of biomarker evaluation.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Incorporation of Prognostic and Predictive Factors Into Glioma Clinical Trials
Authors
Derek R. Johnson
Evanthia Galanis
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Oncology Reports / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1523-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-012-0279-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Current Oncology Reports 1/2013 Go to the issue

Neuro-oncology (MR Gilbert, Section Editor)

Success at Last: A Molecular Factor That Informs Treatment

Letter to the Editor

In Reply: Response to Marioni

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine