Background Temozolomide offers minimal benefit in patients with glioblastoma with unmethylated O 6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status, hence the need for novel therapies. This study evaluated whether veliparib, a brain-penetrant poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, acts synergistically with radiation and temozolomide. Methods VERTU was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and MGMT-unmethylated promotor status. The experimental arm consisted of veliparib and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant veliparib and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to extend the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS-6m) in the experimental arm. Results A total of 125 participants were enrolled, with 84 in the experimental arm and 41 in the standard arm. The median age was 61 years, 70% were male, 59% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, and 87% underwent macroscopic resection. PFS-6m was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36–57%) in the experimental arm and 31% (95% CI: 18–46%) in the standard arm. Median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 11.4–14.5 months) in the experimental arm and 12.8 months (95% CI: 9.5–15.8 months) in the standard arm. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new safety signals. Conclusion The veliparib-containing regimen was feasible and well tolerated. However, there was insufficient evidence of clinical benefit in this population. Further information from correlative translational work and other trials of PARP inhibitors in glioblastoma are still awaited.

BackgroundUse of the neoadjuvant approach to treat breast cancer patients has increased since the early 2000s, but the overall pathway of care for such patients can be highly variable. The aim of our project was to establish a multidisciplinary consensus among clinicians with expertise in neoadjuvant therapy (nat) for breast cancer and to determine if that consensus reflects published methods used in randomized controlled trials (rcts) in this area.MethodsA modified Delphi protocol, which used iterative surveys administered to 85 experts across Canada, was established to obtain expert consensus concerning all aspects of the care pathway for patients undergoing nat for breast cancer. All rcts published between January 1, 1967, and December 1, 2012, were systematically reviewed. Data extracted from the rcts were analyzed to determine if the methods used matched the expert consensus for specific areas of nat management. A scoring system determined the strength of the agreement between the literature and the expert consensus.ResultsConsensus was achieved for all areas of the pathway of care for patients undergoing nat for breast cancer, with the exception of the role of magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-treatment or preoperative setting. The levels of agreement between the consensus statements and the published rcts varied, primarily because specific aspects of the pathway of care were not well described in the reviewed literature.ConclusionsA true consensus of expert opinion concerning the pathway of care appropriate for patients receiving nat for breast cancer has been achieved. A review of the literature illuminated gaps in the evidence about some elements of nat management. Where evidence is available, agreement with expert opinion is strong overall. Our study is unique in its approach to establishing consensus among medical experts in this field and has established a pathway of care that can be applied in practice for patients receiving nat.

ObjectivesTo summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals.DesignA scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021.Eligibility and criteriaStudy participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis.Data extraction and synthesisWe summarised findings graphically and descriptively.ResultsFrom 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

2011 Background: TMZ offers minimal benefit in uMGMT GBM pts. V is synergistic with both RT and TMZ in preclinical models, safe when combined with either RT or TMZ clinically, but the triplet (V+RT+TMZ) is poorly tolerated. This study examined a novel approach to patients with uMGMT GBM. Methods: VERTU is a randomized Phase 2 trial comparing Arm A (Standard of care) = RT (60Gy/30 fractions) + TMZ (75mg/m2 daily) followed by TMZ (150–200mg/m2D 1–5) every 28 days for 6 cycles vs Arm B (experimental arm) = RT (60Gy/30 fractions) + V (200mg PO BID) followed by TMZ (150–200mg/m2D 1–5) + V (40mg bid, D 1–7) every 28 days for 6 cycles in pts with newly diagnosed centrally determined uMGMT GBM. The study aims to randomize 120 pts (2:1 to the experimental arm). The primary endpoint was 6 months progression free survival (6mPFS) with multiple secondary and tertiary endpoints. Evaluation of feasibility and safety was planned after completion of RT in the first 60 pts (Stage 1). (ANZCTR #ACTRN12615000407594). Tumor tissue and serial bloods were collected for translational research. Results: 125 pts were randomized (41 Arm A, 84 Arm B). Mean (range) age 58 (22–78) years, 70% male, 61% ECOG 0, 86% macroscopic resection, 14% biopsy. At the time of analysis (cut-off date: 04/Feb/2019), median follow up was 16.5 months, 76 pts had died. 6mPFS (95% CI, Kaplan-Meier estimate) was 37% (22–52) in Arm A and 53% (41–63) in Arm B, and median PFS was 4.4m (95% CI 4.0–6.0) for Arm A and 6.2m (95% CI 4.9–7.1) for Arm B (HR = 0.81, 95%CI 0.54–1.21). 50% of pts in Arm A and 53% in Arm B experienced ≥ G3 adverse events (AEs). The most common G 3/4 AEs were decreased platelets, seizures, hyperglycemia and diarrhea (each 5%) in Arm A and decreased platelets (13%) and seizures (11%) in Arm B. Conclusions: In this multicenter, randomized study, the experimental therapy was feasible and well tolerated. The observed 6mPFS appeared longer in Arm B, but at the time of submitting the abstract, this result did not meet the prespecified primary endpoint. More mature results will be presented at the annual meeting. QoL in VERTU is reported separately. Central MR review, biomarker analyses, including DNA repair and methylation signature analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12615000407594.