We present the case of a patient with a left frontal glioblastoma with PNET features and hypermutated genotype in the setting of a POLE germline alteration. During standard-of-care chemoradiation, the patient developed a cervical spine metastasis and was subsequently treated with Pembrolizumab. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed an additional metastatic spinal lesion. Using whole exome DNA sequencing and clonal analysis, we report changes in the subclonal architecture throughout treatment. Furthermore, a persistently high neoantigen load was observed within all tumors. Interestingly, following initiation of Pembrolizumab, brisk lymphocyte infiltration was observed in the subsequently resected metastatic spinal lesion and an objective radiographic response was noted in a progressive intracranial lesion suggestive of active CNS immunosurveillance following checkpoint blockade therapy.

ImportanceGlioblastoma is the most lethal primary brain cancer. Clinical outcomes for glioblastoma remain poor, and new treatments are needed.ObjectiveTo investigate whether adding autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccine (DCVax-L) to standard of care (SOC) extends survival among patients with glioblastoma.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 3, prospective, externally controlled nonrandomized trial compared overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM) and recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) treated with DCVax-L plus SOC vs contemporaneous matched external control patients treated with SOC. This international, multicenter trial was conducted at 94 sites in 4 countries from August 2007 to November 2015. Data analysis was conducted from October 2020 to September 2021.InterventionsThe active treatment was DCVax-L plus SOC temozolomide. The nGBM external control patients received SOC temozolomide and placebo; the rGBM external controls received approved rGBM therapies.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary and secondary end points compared overall survival (OS) in nGBM and rGBM, respectively, with contemporaneous matched external control populations from the control groups of other formal randomized clinical trials.ResultsA total of 331 patients were enrolled in the trial, with 232 randomized to the DCVax-L group and 99 to the placebo group. Median OS (mOS) for the 232 patients with nGBM receiving DCVax-L was 19.3 (95% CI, 17.5-21.3) months from randomization (22.4 months from surgery) vs 16.5 (95% CI, 16.0-17.5) months from randomization in control patients (HR = 0.80; 98% CI, 0.00-0.94; P = .002). Survival at 48 months from randomization was 15.7% vs 9.9%, and at 60 months, it was 13.0% vs 5.7%. For 64 patients with rGBM receiving DCVax-L, mOS was 13.2 (95% CI, 9.7-16.8) months from relapse vs 7.8 (95% CI, 7.2-8.2) months among control patients (HR, 0.58; 98% CI, 0.00-0.76; P < .001). Survival at 24 and 30 months after recurrence was 20.7% vs 9.6% and 11.1% vs 5.1%, respectively. Survival was improved in patients with nGBM with methylated MGMT receiving DCVax-L compared with external control patients (HR, 0.74; 98% CI, 0.55-1.00; P = .03).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, adding DCVax-L to SOC resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant extension of survival for patients with both nGBM and rGBM compared with contemporaneous, matched external controls who received SOC alone.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00045968

Successful hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) requires the infusion of a sufficient number of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPCs) that are capable of homing to the bone marrow cavity and regenerating durable trilineage hematopoiesis in a timely fashion. Stem cells harvested from peripheral blood are the most commonly used graft source in HSCT. While granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the most frequently used agent for stem cell mobilization, the use of G-CSF alone results in suboptimal stem cell yields in a significant proportion of patients. Both the chemokine receptor CXCR4 and the integrin α4β1 (VLA-4) play important roles in the homing and retention of HSPCs within the bone marrow microenvironment. Preclinical and/or clinical studies have shown that targeted disruption of the interaction of CXCR4 or VLA-4 with their ligands results in the rapid and reversible mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells into the peripheral circulation and is synergistic when combined with G-CSF. In this review we discuss the development of small molecule CXCR4 and VLA-4 inhibitors and how they may improve the utility and convenience of peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.

Background Nearly all patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma experience recurrence following standard-of-care radiotherapy (RT) + temozolomide (TMZ). The purpose of the phase 3 randomized CheckMate 548 study was to evaluate RT+TMZ combined with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) or placebo (PBO) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (NCT02667587). Methods Patients (N=716) were randomized 1:1 to NIVO [(240 mg every 2 weeks ×8, then 480 mg every 4 weeks) + RT (60 Gy over 6 weeks) + TMZ (75 mg/m 2 once daily during RT, then 150-200 mg/m 2 once daily days 1-5 of every 28-day cycle ×6)] or PBO+RT+TMZ following the same regimen. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients without baseline corticosteroids and in all randomized patients. Results As of December 22, 2020, median (m)PFS (blinded independent central review) was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.9-11.8) with NIVO+RT+TMZ vs 10.3 months (95% CI, 9.7-12.5) with PBO+RT+TMZ (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3) and mOS was 28.9 months (95% CI, 24.4-31.6) vs 32.1 months (95% CI, 29.4-33.8), respectively (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3). In patients without baseline corticosteroids, mOS was 31.3 months (95% CI, 28.6-34.8) with NIVO+RT+TMZ vs 33.0 months (95% CI, 31.0-35.1) with PBO+RT+TMZ (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.4). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 52.4% vs 33.6%, respectively. Conclusions NIVO added to RT+TMZ did not improve survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated or indeterminate MGMT promoter. No new safety signals were observed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPis) are a novel class of immunotherapeutic agents that have revolutionized the treatment of cancer; however, these drugs can also cause a unique spectrum of autoimmune toxicity. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is a rare, but often severe, complication of ICPis. We identified 14 patients from nine institutions across the United States who developed ICPi-AIHA. The median interval from ICPi initiation to development of AIHA was 55 days (interquartile range [IQR], 22-110 days). Results from the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) were available for 13 of 14 patients: 8 patients (62%) had a positive DAT and 5 (38%) had a negative DAT. The median pretreatment and nadir hemoglobin concentrations were 11.8 g/dL (IQR, 10.2-12.9 g/dL) and 6.3 g/dL (IQR, 6.1-8.0 g/dL), respectively. Four patients (29%) had a preexisting lymphoproliferative disorder, and two (14%) had a positive DAT prior to initiation of ICPi therapy. All patients were treated with glucocorticoids, with three requiring additional immunosuppressive therapy. Complete and partial recoveries of hemoglobin were achieved in 12 (86%) and 2 (14%) patients, respectively. Seven patients (50%) were rechallenged with ICPis, and one (14%) developed recurrent AIHA. Clinical and laboratory features of ICPi-AIHA were similar in DAT positive and negative patients. ICPi-AIHA shares many clinical features with primary AIHA; however, a unique aspect of ICPi-AIHA is a high incidence of DAT negativity. Glucocorticoids are an effective first-line treatment in the majority of patients with ICPi-AIHA, and most patients who are rechallenged with an ICPi do not appear to develop recurrence of AIHA. a Long-standing history of leukopenia of unclear etiology, bone marrow biopsy negative for malignancy, and leukopenia believed to be autoimmune in nature. b Received indoximod in combination with ICPi therapy as part of a clinical trial. c R-CHOP, fludarabine (received >3 years prior to development of AIHA), XRT, auto-SCT for treatment of MZL, and cisplatin and etoposide for treatment of NSCLC. d Received nivolumab on a clinical trial after conventional chemotherapy. e 5-FU, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, panitumumab, regorafenib, and trifluridine/tipiracil. f Received GVAX and cyclophosphamide in combination with ICPi therapy as part of a clinical trial. g Dabrafenib, trametinib for treatment of melanoma, fludarabine (received >3 years prior to development of AIHA), cyclophosphamide, bendamustine, rituximab, obinutuzumab, and ibrutinib for treatment of CLL.

V600E mutations have been successfully treated with targeted therapy in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and thyroid cancer. Interestingly, these mutations have also been identified in a subset of pediatric and adult brain tumors, with several cases reportedly responding to targeted therapy. However, these reports have been limited to single-agent BRAF inhibitor therapy and recurrent disease. Herein, we report dramatic clinical and radiographic responses to combination dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) in 2 adults with high-grade gliomas (HGGs), with 1 patient treated in the first-line setting. These observations, together with prior case reports, advocate for routine screening of point mutations in adult HGGs, and suggest that treatment with dual-targeted therapy, even in newly diagnosed cases, is safe and effective.

Disulfiram has shown promising activity including proteasome inhibitory properties and synergy with temozolomide in preclinical glioblastoma (GBM) models. In a phase I study for newly diagnosed GBM after chemoradiotherapy, we have previously reported our initial dose-escalation results combining disulfiram with adjuvant temozolomide and established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) as 500 mg per day. Here we report the final results of the phase I study including an additional dose-expansion cohort of disulfiram with concurrent copper. The phase I study consisted of an initial dose-escalation phase of disulfiram 500-1000 mg daily during adjuvant temozolomide, followed by a dose-expansion phase of disulfiram 500 mg daily with copper 2 mg three times daily. Proteasome inhibition was assessed using fluorometric 20S proteasome assay on peripheral blood cell. A total of 18 patients were enrolled: 7 patients received 500 mg disulfiram, 5 patients received 1000 mg disulfiram, and 6 patients received 500 mg disulfiram with copper. Two dose-limiting toxicities occurred with 1000 mg disulfiram. At disulfiram 500 mg with or without copper, only 1 patient (7%) required dose-reduction during the first month of therapy. Addition of copper to disulfiram did not increase toxicity nor proteasome inhibition. The median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% CI 0.8-8.2). The median overall survival (OS) was 14.0 months (95% CI 8.3-19.6), and the 2-year OS was 24%. The MTD of disulfiram at 500 mg daily in combination with adjuvant temozolomide was well tolerated by GBM patients, but 1000 mg daily was not. Toxicity and pharmacodynamic effect of disulfiram were similar with or without concurrent copper. The clinical efficacy appeared to be comparable to historical data. Additional clinical trials to combine disulfiram and copper with chemoradiotherapy or to resensitize recurrent GBM to temozolomide are ongoing.

Background: Glioblastoma multiforme is a malignant intracranial neoplasm that constitutes a therapeutic challenge because of the associated high morbidity and mortality given the lack of effective approved medication and aggressive nature of the tumor. However, there has been extensive research recently to address the reasons implicated in the resistant nature of the tumor to pharmaceutical compounds, which have resulted in several clinical trials investigating promising treatment approaches. Methods: We reviewed literature published since 2010 from PUBMED and several annual meeting abstracts through 15 September 2020. Selected articles included those relevant to topics of glioblastoma tumor biology, original basic research, clinical trials, seminal reviews, and meta-analyses. We provide a discussion based on the collected evidence regarding the challenging factors encountered during treatment, and we highlighted the relevant trials of novel therapies including immunotherapy and targeted medication. Results: Selected literature revealed four main factors implicated in the low efficacy encountered with investigational treatments which included: (1) blood-brain barrier; (2) immunosuppressive microenvironment; (3) genetic heterogeneity; (4) external factors related to previous systemic treatment that can modulate tumor microenvironment. Investigational therapies discussed in this review were classified as immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Immunotherapy included: (1) immune checkpoint inhibitors; (2) adoptive cell transfer therapy; (3) therapeutic vaccines; (4) oncolytic virus therapy. Targeted therapy included tyrosine kinase inhibitors and other receptor inhibitors. Finally, we provide our perspective on future directions in treatment of glioblastoma. Conclusion: Despite the limited success in development of effective therapeutics in glioblastoma, many treatment approaches hold potential promise including immunotherapy and novel combinational drugs. Addressing the molecular landscape and resistant immunosuppressive nature of glioblastoma are imperative in further development of effective treatments.