| Literature DB >> 34142085 |
Stephen Shuford1, Lindsay Lipinski2, Ajay Abad2, Ashley M Smith1, Melissa Rayner1, Lauren O'Donnell1, Jeremy Stuart1, Laszlo L Mechtler2, Andrew J Fabiano2, Jeff Edenfield3, Charles Kanos4, Stephen Gardner4, Philip Hodge4, Michael Lynn4, Nicholas A Butowski5, Seunggu J Han6, Navid Redjal7, Howland E Crosswell1, Cecile Rose T Vibat1, Lillia Holmes1, Matthew Gevaert1, Robert A Fenstermaker2, Teresa M DesRochers1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes in high-grade glioma (HGG) have remained relatively unchanged over the last 3 decades with only modest increases in overall survival. Despite the validation of biomarkers to classify treatment response, most newly diagnosed (ND) patients receive the same treatment regimen. This study aimed to determine whether a prospective functional assay that provides a direct, live tumor cell-based drug response prediction specific for each patient could accurately predict clinical drug response prior to treatment.Entities:
Keywords: 3D culture; drug response prediction; ex vivo; glioblastoma; glioma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34142085 PMCID: PMC8207705 DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdab065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurooncol Adv ISSN: 2632-2498
Figure 1.(A) Timing of optimal drug response prediction in 3 HGG cell lines. (B,C) Representative data of inter- and intra-assay reproducibility testing. Reproducibility was defined as having similar drug response readouts indicated by the vertical red hash lines in the graphs. (B) Overlapping nonlinear regression curves of assay generated drug response performed by multiple operators on 2 primary tissue samples and 2 drugs. (C) Repetition of assay generated drug response by a single operator for 3 different primary tissue samples and 2 drugs each. n = 7.
Figure 2.(A) Clinical pathology of all patients enrolled in the study. (B) The patient sample inclusion process. (C) Clinical pathology of the patients tested in the established assay.
Figure 3.Clinical pathology of the 33 patients whose assay response was correlated to clinical response. Blank squares indicate drug not tested. Abbreviations: R/T = radiation + TMZ, mT = maintenance TMZ, WT = wild type, U = unmethylated, M = methylated, Carbo = carboplatin, Iri = irinotecan, Lom = lomustine, Eto = etoposide, Ever = everolimus, Ruc = rucaparib, Pro = procarbazine, Abe = abemaciclib, Osi = osimertinib, Tra = trametinib.
Figure 4.(A) Summary of the 20 patients whose TMZ test prediction data were correlated to clinical response. (B) Kaplan–Meier plot of the 20 patients who progressed enough to make a call on assay prediction following initial surgery separated by assay defined TMZ response. (C) Scatter plot of patients analyzed within this cohort. Red diamonds indicate the 4 patients who have progressed enough to assess assay prediction of OS but are still alive. The inset defines the parameters for categorizing patients as true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN) according to both assay response and clinical response. (D) Contingency table of response cohorts based upon assay defined TMZ response.
Figure 5.(A) Clinical pathology of the 7 recurrent patients whose assay response was utilized as part of their clinical treatment. Abbreviations: WT = wild type, U = unmethylated, M = methylated. (B) PFS of the patients measured from time of surgery for which tumor tissue was used in the 3D Predict Glioma assay to the time of radiographic progression. Clear bar indicates the patient has not progressed at the time this work was submitted, ‡ indicates the patient tested at their third relapse, fourth surgery, and # indicates the patient tested at their second relapse, third surgery. Red lines indicate published median PFS and 95% CI (C) Kaplan–Meier plot of the patients within this cohort.
Figure 6.(A) PFS of the patients treated with combination carboplatin/bevacizumab. Red line indicates published median PFS and 95% CI for patients treated with carboplatin/bevacizumab combination therapy. (B) MRI of the brain of one patient treated with carboplatin/bevacizumab combination therapy. T1 weighted contrasted axial images immediately preceding the patient’s third resection (1) showing enhancing nodularity (arrow) within the prior resection cavity, immediately following the third resection (2), and after 6 cycles of carboplatin/bevacizumab (3) with no evidence of enhancing disease in the cavity. (C) PFS of the patients treated with combination carboplatin/etoposide. Red line indicates published median PFS and 95% CI for patients treated with carboplatin/etoposide combination therapy. The white bar indicates that at the time of this publication, the patient has not progressed. (D) MRI of the brain of one patient treated with carboplatin/etoposide combination therapy. T1 weighted contrasted axial images immediately preceding the patient’s second resection (1) with bulky recurrent enhancing disease (arrow), immediately following the second resection (2), and after 6 cycles of carboplatin/etoposide (3) with no evidence of enhancing disease. (E) PFS of the patient treated with combination irinotecan/bevacizumab. Red line indicates published median PFS and 95% CI for patients treated with irinotecan/bevacizumab combination therapy. (F) MRI of the brain of the patient treated with irinotecan/bevacizumab combination therapy. T1 weighted contrasted axial images immediately preceding the patient’s second resection (1) showing enhancing area of recurrence (arrow), immediately following the second resection (2), and after 5 cycles of irinotecan/bevacizumab (3) without evidence of progressive disease. (G) PFS of the patients treated with dabrafenib.