Abstract
Purpose
Molecular diagnostics including next generation gene sequencing are increasingly used to determine options for individualized therapies in brain tumor patients. We aimed to evaluate the decision-making process of molecular targeted therapies and analyze data on tolerability as well as signals for efficacy.
Methods
Via retrospective analysis, we identified primary brain tumor patients who were treated off-label with a targeted therapy at the University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University. We analyzed which types of molecular alterations were utilized to guide molecular off-label therapies and the diagnostic procedures for their assessment during the period from 2008 to 2021. Data on tolerability and outcomes were collected.
Results
413 off-label therapies were identified with an increasing annual number for the interval after 2016. 37 interventions (9%) were targeted therapies based on molecular markers. Glioma and meningioma were the most frequent entities treated with molecular matched targeted therapies. Rare entities comprised e.g. medulloblastoma and papillary craniopharyngeoma. Molecular targeted approaches included checkpoint inhibitors, inhibitors of mTOR, FGFR, ALK, MET, ROS1, PIK3CA, CDK4/6, BRAF/MEK and PARP. Responses in the first follow-up MRI were partial response (13.5%), stable disease (29.7%) and progressive disease (46.0%). There were no new safety signals. Adverse events with fatal outcome (CTCAE grade 5) were not observed. Only, two patients discontinued treatment due to side effects. Median progression-free and overall survival were 9.1/18 months in patients with at least stable disease, and 1.8/3.6 months in those with progressive disease at the first follow-up MRI.
Conclusion
A broad range of actionable alterations was targeted with available molecular therapeutics.
However, efficacy was largely observed in entities with paradigmatic oncogenic drivers, in particular with BRAF mutations. Further research on biomarker-informed molecular matched therapies is urgently necessary.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Primary CNS tumors comprise a heterogeneous group of benign and malignant tumors. Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common entity in the group of primary malignant brain tumors and characterized by pronounced therapy resistance and poor prognosis. While a standard first line treatment has been defined for various primary brain tumors, general standards for treatment at recurrence are mostly lacking [1,2,3,4]. In recent years, various studies have attempted to evaluate new therapeutic strategies including anti-angiogenic approaches, immunotherapies, and molecular targeted strategies in the first line and recurrent disease setting, but delivered overall disappointing results [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
Due to a lack of therapeutic options, especially for patients with relapsing tumors in good clinical condition, individual off-label therapies can be considered and reimbursement can be granted by health insurances. Decision-making on the drug of choice usually involves discussion in neurooncological and/or molecular tumor boards and is guided by (preliminary) results of clinical trials or specific molecular markers. An example of trial-based guidance in GB therapy is regorafenib in recurrent disease according to a positive phase II trial despite the lack of confirmation of efficacy in a phase III trial [15]. A prime example for an individualized concept in neurooncology is the NCT neuro master match (N2M2; NOA20) study in which the molecular signature of GBs determines the treatment arm [16]. In line with the trend towards individualized therapy in clinical trials, molecular marker guided decision making is frequently used for off-label therapies and has to some degree replaced the “one size fits all” approach [17].
For many brain tumor entities, frequent activation of specific signaling pathways has been demonstrated [18]. Because such activation may be due to a spectrum of different genetic alterations more comprehensive genetic analyses can be helpful and may also help diagnostically in unclear cases. One trial applying multidimensional characterization of tumors using whole-genome/exome and RNA sequencing to reveal targeted therapeutic strategies in younger patients is the molecularly aided stratification for tumor eradication research (MASTER) program of the National center for tumor diseases (NCT) and the German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) [19, 20].
For several tumor entities like malignant gliomas, certain molecular analyses are already part of the standard pathology workup due to their role in diagnostics (e.g. 1p19q codeletion to confirm oligodendroglioma or EGFR amplification as a novel criterion for GB) or their impact on prognosis and response to treatment (e.g. MGMT promoter methylation status to determine temozolomide efficacy). For specific rare brain cancer entities, molecular matched therapies targeting key driver mutations have already produced encouraging results. Examples are BRAF mutations in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA) and papillary craniopharnygeoma (PCP) as well as TSC mutations in subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGAs) that can be targeted by BRAF or mTOR inhibitors (e.g. vemurafenib or everolimus) [21,22,23,24,25].
To evaluate our decision-making process and potential efficacies of off-label molecular matched targeted therapies, we performed a retrospective analysis to determine which agents were used based on which grounds to treat primary brain tumors during the period from 2008 to 2021. Additionally, we collected data on tolerability and signals for efficacy.
Material and methods
Study population and statistical analysis
A retrospective case analysis was performed to identify off-label medications employed in the treatment of brain tumors in adults from 2008 to 2021 (Fig. 1). Ethics approval for this analysis was granted by our institutional review board (ethics committee at the University Hospital Frankfurt; reference number SNO-3-2021).
The clinical database of our university healthcare center was scanned for neurooncological patients for whom an application for health insurance reimbursement for an off-label therapy had been submitted between January 2008 and April 2021. Prior to implementation of our digital hospital patient management system, patient records for off-label interventions were stored as print out documents or single files on the hospital server. These data were analyzed manually (“other sources”). Applications from later years were saved in our digital system and were scanned electronically and then manually reanalyzed. Exclusion criteria were secondary brain tumors (brain metastases or meningeosis neoplastica), tumors of the peripheral nervous system, tumor treating fields as off-label therapies, and patients who received an individual off-label therapy whose purpose was not anti-tumor therapy, e.g. bevacizumab to treat radiation necrosis. Identified off-label therapies were divided into the subgroups: treatment in analogy to (ongoing) clinical trials or off-label molecular matched targeted therapy. Off-label therapies in analogy to clinicial trials were not further analyzed in this manuscript. Subsequently, data on the specifics as well as number of individual off-label therapies per case were collected and analyzed from date of initial diagnosis until death, the last contact or the end of the follow-up period in December 2021.
Magnetic resonance imaging
For MRI follow-up, all patients had at least T1-weighted (T1-w) sequences before and after intravenous administration of Gadolinium-containing contrast agent and T2-w sequences on a 1.5 or 3 Tesla MRI scanner in a radiological practice or the Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Frankfurt. The first MRI was performed in median after 6 weeks after the initiation of therapy and was assessed according to RANO criteria by an experienced neuroradiologist (P.S.) [26]. Additionally, the date of tumor progression under treatment was determined.
Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for all targets was performed using standard protocols on the automated immunohistochemistry staining system Discovery XT (Roche/Ventana, Tucson, Arizona, USA) and the LEICA BOND-III automated stainer (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany) respectively. The following antibodies were used: PD-L1 (Cell Signaling, Boston, U.S.A.), p-S6K1 (Cell Signaling, Boston, U.S.A.), p-4EBP1 (Cell Signaling, Boston, U.S.A.), p-RPS6 (Ser 235/236 and Ser240/244, Cell Signaling, Boston, U.S.A.), p-PRAS40 (Cell Signaling, Boston, U.S.A.), p-NDRG1 (Cell Signaling, Boston, U.S.A.), p-mTOR (S2448, Cell Signaling, Boston, U.S.A.), IDH1_R132H (Dianova, Eching, Germany) and BRAF V600E (DCS, Hamburg, Germany) [27].
Detection of BRAF V600 mutations by real-time PCR
In patients 13 and 15 mutations in the BRAF gene targeting the amino acid valine at position 600 of the protein were detected with the AmoyDx®BRAF V600 Mutations Detection Kit (Amoy Diagnostics, Co., Ltd., Xiamen, China). The analysis was performed with DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue according to the protocol provided by the manufacturer. The real-time PCR assay uses the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) technology and covers the following BRAF V600 mutations (base exchanges; Cosmic ID): V600E (1799T > A; 476), V600K (1798_1799GT > AA; 473), V600E2 (1799_1800TG > AA; 475), V600R (1798_1799GT > AG; 474), V600D (1799_1800TG > AC; /) and V600D2 (1799_1800TG > AT; 477).
Detection of BRAF V600 mutations by single gene sequencing with pyrosequencing
In, patients 12 and 26, single gene sequencing with pyrosequencing (PyroMark Q24, QIAGEN) for detection of BRAF V600E mutations was performed using the Therascreen BRAF Kit from QIAGEN at the Department of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt.
Human methylation EPIC array
Tumor DNA was isolated from representative FFPE tissue. DNA was further processed and hybridized to the Human Methylation EPIC array beadchips (Illumina, California, USA) following protocols provided by the manufacturer. EPIC array beadchips were scanned by an iScan (Illumina, California, USA) and raw intensity data (idats) was obtained for upload to the website molecularpathology.org provided by the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Calibrated scores for DNA methylation classes and subclasses, copy number variation profiles and MGMT promoter methylation status were recorded (MolecularNeuroPathology.org 2018–Version 3.1.5).
NGS panel sequencing
For patients 3, 9, 18, 19 and 28 NGS panel sequencing was performed on a NextSeq 500 instrument (Illumina) as previously described at the Department of Neuropathology, University Hospital Heidelberg [28]. In brief, a capture-based custom brain tumor panel (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used covering the entire coding and selected intronic and promoter regions of genes of particular relevance in CNS tumors (130 genes in NPHD 2015 and 171 genes in NPHD 2019).
For patients 11 and 14 DNA and RNA based NGS panel sequencing was performed on a GeneReader Platform (QIAGEN) by using the nNGM V1.0 Panel and the QIAact RNA Fusion UMI Panel Kit (Qiagen) at the Department of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt. By focusing on clinically meaningful mutations the QIAGEN clinical insight analyze (QCIA) und QIAGEN clinical insight (QCI) Interpret were applied (reference genome hg19).
For patients 16, 17 and 24 hybrid capture-based panel-sequencing was performed as previously described at the Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg [29, 30]. Briefly, after library preparation for the capture-based TruSight Oncology 500 panel (Illumina), DNA integrity assessment fragmentation, enriched libraries were amplified and sequenced on a NextSeq 500 instrument (Illumina). All assays were performed according to the manufacturers’ protocols. Processing of raw sequencing data and variant calling was carried out using the TruSight Oncology 500 Local App (version 1.3.0.39). Called variants were verified by visual inspection in the Integrative Genomics Viewer [31]. Only variants with an allele frequency above 2% and a minimum coverage of greater than × 100 were considered [30].
NCT master and exome sequencing
Patients 25 and 29 were studied by whole-exome and RNA sequencing within the MASTER program, a prospective observational study by NCT and DKTK that enrolls younger adults with advanced cancers across entities and adult patients with advanced rare malignancies across age groups [19, 20]. Patient 27 was studied by whole-exome sequencing.
DOTATOC-PET
For patients 20–22: The somatostatin analogue DOTATOC (DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3- octreotide) was labeled with 68 Ga eluted from an in-house Ge68/Ga68 generator as described [32,33,34]. 68 Ga DOTATOC-PET/CT was performed on a hybrid PET/CT scanner (Biograph 6, Siemens medical Solutions Inc., Hoffman Estates, Illinois, USA) according to standard protocols [35].
Statistical analysis
Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), defined as the time from initiation of the individual off-label treatment until progression or death from any cause, was determined using Kaplan–Meier analysis for the first off-label therapy of each patient and additionally for each off-label therapy and (Suppl. Figure 1). Statistical significance between the two subgroups of patients with at least stable disease (SD) (including pseudoprogression, and responses) and progressive disease (PD) in the first MRI after start of treatment was calculated by univariate analysis using the log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant (Graph Pad Prism 5.0, GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).
Results
Identification of a brain tumor cohort treated with off-label therapies
A total of 413 off-label therapeutic interventions were identified in 351 patients, 376 (91%) therapies were performed in analogy to preliminary positive data from clinical trials, and 37 (9%) therapies were performed as molecular matched targeted therapies (Fig. 2A). In a year-by-year analysis, molecular matched therapies were administered with an increasing proportion from 2016 compared to previous years. (Fig. 2B). While the proportion of gliomas in the entire cohort was 92%, the proportion of gliomas in the group with molecular matched therapies was lower with 65% (Fig. 2C–D).
Characteristics of patients receiving a molecular matched therapy
Altogether 37 molecular matched therapies were applied in 29 patients. 23/29 patients received one, 4/29 received two and 2/29 patients received three different molecular matched targeted therapies (Table 1). 28% of the patients (8/29) were female. Patients were a median of 47 years old when off-label therapy was initiated (range 19–81). In median, patients had received three prior treatments before the molecular matched therapy was started (range 1–10). In 6/37 off-label-therapies conventional treatments (mainly radio- and/or chemotherapy) were administered in parallel.
Methods of molecular marker detection
Most molecular markers as basis for a targeted therapy were identified by immunohistochemistry, namely detection of PD-L1 expression, mTOR signaling activation via staining for phosphorylated target proteins and detection of BRAF V600E alterations via mutation specific antibodies (Table 1). Comprehensive molecular profiling (in most cases gene panel sequencing, in one case whole-exome sequencing and in two cases whole-exome as well as RNA sequencing within the NCT MASTER program) was also frequently applied for molecular diagnostics (Table 1). The expression of the somatostatin receptor was non-invasively analyzed by DOTATOC-PET (Table 1). Using Human Methylation EPIC array, amplification of CDK4 and a homozygous deletion of CDKN2A were identified (Table 1).
Signals for efficacy of molecular matched therapies
Treatment duration of gliomas (Fig. 3A) and other entities (Fig. 3B) treated with a molecular matched therapy ranged from one to 49 months and complete response to PD respectively. In the first MRI after start of treatment, 46.0% of the cases showed PD (17/37), 29.7% SD (11/37), 13.5% partial response (PR) (5/37), and 10.8% (4/37) of the MRIs were suspicious for pseudoprogression (3/37) or not assessable (1/37) (Fig. 3). Unfortunately, historical controls for rare tumor entities are lacking. However, we and others have already shown that MRI response correlates not only with PFS but also with OS [62, 63]. Therefore, two groups were generated: One group containing all patients with at least stable diseases at first MRI and another group with PD at first MRI. When only evaluating the first off-target therapy for each patient median PFS of patients with at least SD and of patients with PD in the first follow-up MRI were 9.1 and 1.8 months, respectively (p < 0.0001, 95% CI). Median overall survival (OS) of patients with at least SD and of patients with PD were 18 months and 3.6 months, respectively (p < 0.0001, 95% CI) (Fig. 4A, B). When evaluating all off-target therapies results were almost identical (median PFS of the SD-/PD-cohort: 9.1/1.7 months, p < 0.0001, 95% CI; median OS of the SD-/PD-cohort: 18/4 months, p < 0.0001, 95% CI) (Suppl. Figure 1 A, B). Notably, the cohort of off-label interventions with a PD at first MRI contained a higher proportion of WHO Grade 4 tumors. Furthermore, 6/29 patients received two or three off-label interventions.
Immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) with nivolumab as an off-label therapy in brain tumors
Molecular matched therapies included immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for malignant gliomas with high PD-L1 expression or a hypermutator phenotype (patients 1–6). Except for patient 4 with diffuse hemispheric glioma who achieved a SD in the first MRI after start of treatment, all other patients displayed PD. Patient 4 received by far the longest treatment with nivolumab over 22 months. However, this patient (18 years old at the beginning of nivolumab) had a methylated MGMT status and ICI therapy was added concomitantly to first line therapy with lomustine and temozolomide (Table 1).
mTOR inhibition as an off-label therapy in brain tumors
Patient 7 and 8 with GBs were treated with either temsirolimus or everolimus, respectively, to inhibit mTOR signaling which based on IHC signals was activated. Both patients had had extensive prior therapies (Table 1). In both cases, the first MRI after initiation of therapy revealed tumor progression and therapy was subsequently discontinued (Fig. 3A).
Patients 21 and 23 with meningioma CNS WHO grade 3 were also treated with everolimus followed by everolimus plus bevacizumab (patient 21), or everolimus alone (patient 23) due to mTOR pathway activation in Phospho-IHC for three/one and four months, respectively until tumor progression (Table 1, Fig. 3B) [53].
A patient with a papillary tumor of the pineal region (CNS WHO grade 2; patient 25) and mTOR pathway activation in Phospho-IHC potentially due to allelic loss of PTEN and FGFR1 amplification was treated with everolimus with resulting SD until tumor progression after nine months (Fig. 3B, Table 1).
Patient 28 with a high-grade neuroepithelial tumor with MN1 alteration (HGNET-MN1-altered) and a TSC2 mutation was treated with everolimus with SD over twelve months (Fig. 3B, Table 1).
BRAF/MEK inhibition off-label therapy in brain tumors
Patients 11–15 had BRAF-altered malignant gliomas or PXAs and were treated with a BRAF inhibitor with or without a MEK inhibitor. Especially patient 13 (PXA CNS WHO grade 3) who received three different combinational approaches of BRAF/MEK inhibitors (1. dabrafenib, 2. dabrafenib/trametinib, 3. binimetinib/encorafenib) showed a very long response to therapy with initially SD under all three procedures and treatment durations of 49/13/9 months until therapy was discontinued due to PD (Fig. 3A). Patients 11, 12 and 15 also had SD but shorter times to treatment failure (Fig. 3A). Patient 15 was still on therapy after ten months in December 2021 (Fig. 3A). Notably, patients 11–13 have been previously published in a case series [64]. However, at that time, follow-up had only extended until eight months under dabrafenib for patient 11, three months under dabrafenib for patient 12 and 27 months under dabrafenib for patient 13 [64]. The second therapy with dabrafenib in combination with trametinib (all patients) as well as the third therapy with binimetinib/encorafenib (patient 13) had not been reported thus far.
Patient 19 with an ependymoma CNS WHO grade 3 and a BRAF K601E mutation in the panel sequencing analysis was treated with trametinib for two months until tumor progression (Fig. 3B, Table 1).
Patient 26 (PCP with BRAF V600E mutation) received a therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib, which was discontinued after three months despite a partial response on MRI because of sepsis-like episodes (Fig. 5A). The patient was switched to vemurafenib, which also caused serious side effects including sepsis and renal failure. After a brief pause in therapy, vemurafenib was continued at low dose. With a complete response on MRI, vemurafenib was discontinued after five months of therapy (Fig. 5B). After more than four years of follow-up without any tumor specific treatment, the patient remains recurrence-free.
A patient with meningeal melanocytoma and a GNAQ mutation (patient 29) was treated with the MEK inhibitor trametinib (level of evidence stage m1c) with SD in MRI after 3 months of treatment [61]. Therapy was still ongoing for twelve months (Fig. 3A, Table 1) at the end of the follow-up period.
FGFR inhibition off-label therapy in diffuse midline gliomas H3K27-altered (CNS WHO grade 4)
Patient 17 and 18 with radiologically recurrent H3K27-altered diffuse midline glioma and FGFR1 mutations were treated with the FGFR1/2/3 inhibitor pemigatinib. In patient 17, the identified mutation in FGFR1 (FGFR1:N456K, likely pathogenic) had an allele frequency of 77.1% [65]. This FGFR1 mutation has previously been reported in diffuse midline gliomas [66, 67]. In patient 18, the allele frequency of the identified mutation FGFR1:N457D (mutation rated as relevant) was approximately 25%. Both patients suffered from early tumor progression after three and two months, respectively (Fig. 3A, Fig. 5B).
Sandostatin and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy as off-label therapy for somatostatin receptor expressing meningioma
Two patients with meningioma CNS WHO grade 2 and 3 (patient 20 and 22) were treated with sandostatin due to somatostatin receptor expression (as visualized by DOTATOC-PET) for two/three months until early tumor progression (Table 1, Fig. 3B).
Patient 21 with a meningioma CNS WHO grade 3 and somatostatin receptor expression was treated with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 177Lu-DOTATOC for five months until tumor progression [50]. Afterwards, everolimus and everolimus/bevacizumab were administered (Table 1, Fig. 3B).
Other inhibitors of signal transduction as off-label therapy in brain tumors
Other off-label therapies included two GB patients with amplification of CDK4 and/or a homozygous deletion of CDKN2A treated with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib for five (patient 9) and three months (patient 10) (Table 1, Fig. 3A). Both patients suffered from early tumor progression (Fig. 3A).
Patient 16 with an oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q codeleted (CNS WHO grade 3) with an activating PIK3CA mutation was treated with the PIK3CA inhibitor alpelisib (allele frequency of PIK3CA mutation 33%). Only 3 days after the start of alpelisib, reactive hyperglycemia of 200 mg/dl occurred. It has been reported that the inhibition of PI3K can cause a systemic glucose–insulin feedback leading to an reactivation of PI3K signaling even in the presence of PI3K inhibitors. In a mouse model, ketogenic diet was able to suppress this mechanism and to enhance efficacy of treatment [45]. Therefore, ketogenic diet was added to alpelisib. While rapid resolution of hyperglycemia was achieved, PFS was only two months and treatment was discontinued thereafter (Fig. 3A).
A patient with medulloblastoma (patient 24) and KMT2C mutation (allele frequency 24%, classified as deletion mutation) was treated with the PARP inhibitor olaparib for five months until tumor progression (Fig. 3B). KMT2C has been shown to sensitize bladder cancer cells to olaparib in preclinical models [55].
Patient 27 (esthesioneuroblastoma with NTRK3 amplification) was treated with the TKI crizotinib which was discontinued due to side effects (see below) after 6 months of therapy, although follow-up MRI showed a SD.
Side effects and tolerability
Overall, the tolerability of therapy was good. Adverse events with fatal outcome (CTCAE grade 5) were not observed. Two patients discontinued treatment due to side effects: In patient 26 (PCP with BRAF V600E mutation) therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib was discontinued after three months despite a partial response on MRI because of three episodes of fever, some of which were sepsis-like (CTCAE grade 4) (Fig. 5B). The patient was switched to vemurafenib, which also caused serious side effects with sepsis and renal failure (CTCAE grade 4). After a brief pause in therapy, vemurafenib was resumed at low dose. With a complete response on MRI, vemurafenib was discontinued after five months of therapy (Fig. 5B).
Patient 27 (esthesioneuroblastoma with NTRK3 amplification) who was treated with the TKI crizotinib developed an altered taste, weight loss, nausea, color perception disturbances, swelling of the right lower leg of unclear etiology, liver enzyme elevations and neutropenia (CTCAE grade 2–3). Therefore, crizotinib was discontinued after six months, although follow-up MRI showed a SD. Other AEs of CTCAE grade 3 or 4 were not observed.
Discussion
Recent advances in gene sequencing have led to a deeper understanding of tumor biology and revealed a spectrum of clinically actionable mutations in brain tumors.
A prime example for the successful implementation of targeted therapies in brain tumors are BRAF V600E mutations in PCPs. BRAF V600E mutations can be found in 95% of all PCPs and case series report the successful exploitation of BRAF inhibitors in this entity [21, 57, 58]. In order to prevent early resistance to BRAF inhibition, the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib can be combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib according to protocols established for BRAF mutated melanoma [24, 25, 41, 68]. In line with this our index patient was by far the best treatment outcome in the entire cohort. Interestingly, this patient was treated for only 3 months with a dual BRAF/MEK inhibitory approach due to side effects and afterwards was switched to the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib alone, which also had to be discontinued after only five months due to side effects. This patient still displays a complete response for now more than 4.5 years since start of therapy and for 4 years since therapy discontinuation. This underlines that in some cases premature discontinuation of therapy does not endanger outcome and also illustrates the central role of established key driver mutations as a therapeutic target. Nonetheless, actionable key driver mutations are rare in primary brain cancers and frequently analyses yield variants with unclear oncogenic driver potential as illustrated by the example of the two young patients with recurrent H3 K27-altered diffuse midline glioma and FGFR1 mutations (Table 1, Figs. 3A, 5B). Diffuse midline glioma H3 K27-altered are chronically treatment-resistant tumors and new therapies are urgently needed. Based on reports on efficacy of FGFR inhibitors in brain tumors from basket trials e.g. of the FGFR1-4 inhibitor futibatinib [46], these patients were treated with FGFR1-3 inhibitor pemigatinib which in Europe is approved for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with fusion or rearrangement of FGFR2. Unfortunately, both patients did not benefit from pemigatinib with early tumor progression after three/two months (Figs. 3A, 5B). The efficacy of pemigatinib in tumors with activating FGFR mutations or translocations including brain tumors will be evaluated in upcoming clinical trials including the FIGHT-207 study (NCT03822117) [47].
A better understanding of the actual activation of oncogenic signaling cascades can come from pathway analyses with phospho-immunohistochemistry stainings [69]. For example diverse genetic events including gene amplification of receptors, activating mutations of oncogenes or inactivating mutations of tumor suppressors can all induce downstream kinases that phosphorylate target proteins. Therefore, pathway analyses by IHC for phosphorylated target proteins might offer a better understanding of the actual pathway activation status via integration of different upstream pathway alterations. In the case of mTOR signaling, phospho-specific antibodies for target proteins are available but phosphorylation signals also depend on tissue quality and processing time [69]. In retrospective analyses of phase 2 and 3 clinical trials for the first line treatment of GBs, mTOR activation as assessed by IHC was identified as a biomarker to predict response to mTOR (Wick et al. 2016) or EGFR inhibitors [13, 14, 70]. In addition, parallel signaling pathways may be driving the oncogenic phenotype. To date, precision oncology predominantly focuses on molecular matching approaches using monotherapies to target one mutation with one drug, although many cancer entities are molecular heterogeneous diseases and the possibility of evasive resistance is a known phenomenon. Exceptions are the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for BRAF mutated melanoma, PCPs and PXAs as also applied in our cohort [24, 25, 41, 68]. In line with that, targeting a larger fraction of molecular alterations yields a higher 'matching score' and can correlate with significantly improved disease control rates, PFS and OS rates [71]. A diagnostic bias may arise if only primary tissue is available for analysis and the disease has meanwhile relapsed. Analyses on recurrent low grade gliomas showed that in almost 50% of the cases at least half of the mutations detected in the initial tumor were lost at recurrence [72]. In our cohort in most cases the detection of the molecular alteration was performed in the recurrent tumor (Table 1). Nevertheless, therapy can be a driver for tumor evolution and most of our patients had received further treatments after detection of the molecular marker and the start of the molecular matched treatment.
Targeted therapies are undoubtedly an evolving field and new sequencing technologies offer the potential of identification of established drivers in different cancer entities. Consequently, tumor agnostic treatments selective for specific molecular alterations, regardless of tumor location and histology, are on the rise. The first tumor-agnostic drugs approved by the by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) solid tumors, as well as larotrectinib and entrectinib for tumors with NTRK fusions [73]. The approval of tumor-agnostic drugs with high efficacy rates across different cancers justifies the broad implementation of (genetic) biomarker analysis also in primary brain cancer.
Perspective
This retrospective pilot study of molecular matched therapies in brain tumors demonstrates that precision medicine based on molecular profiling is evolving in neurooncology.
Our results confirm the real world benefits of BRAF mutation-targeted therapies in brain tumors. While other bona fide driver mutations were not frequently found, the advances in molecular diagnostics over the recent years will pave the way for a more and more detailed molecular analysis of primary and recurrent tumors. Together with a broader implementation of molecular tumor boards, the increasing arsenal of molecular targeted drugs and the better understanding of tumor biology this will allow more promising off-label therapeutic interventions and promote the conduction of biomarker stratified clinical trials. The authors believe that in the not too distant future, molecular targeted therapies will be an important part for at least some subgroups of brain tumors. Critical questions down this road will be which patients to test at what stage of disease, which molecular tests/diagnostics to employ (e.g. panel vs. exome sequencing, RNA sequencing), the interpretation of these results into molecular targeted therapies, the implementation of treatment and finally the evaluation of efficacy ideally in clinical registries. Certainly, this is a formidable task for which brain tumor centers must step up and embark on a learning curve. This may be accomplished within comprehensive cancer centers by close partnerships with teams from other tumor entities, which already have made greater advances in individualized therapies to share resources and expertise.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Cairncross G, Wang M, Shaw E et al (2013) Phase III trial of chemoradiotherapy for anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term results of RTOG 9402. J Clin Oncol 31:337–343. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.43.2674
Shaw EG, Wang M, Coons SW et al (2012) 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 30:3065–3070. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.35.8598
Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ et al (2005) Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:987–996. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043330
van den Bent MJ, Brandes AA, Taphoorn MJB et al (2013) Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term follow-up of EORTC brain tumor group study 26951. J Clin Oncol 31:344–350. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.43.2229
Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W et al (2014) Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370:709–722. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1308345
Franceschi E, Stupp R, van den Bent MJ et al (2012) EORTC 26083 phase I/II trial of dasatinib in combination with CCNU in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 14:1503–1510. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nos256
Gilbert MR, Dignam JJ, Armstrong TS et al (2014) A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370:699–708. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1308573
Lassman AB, Pugh SL, Gilbert MR et al (2015) Phase 2 trial of dasatinib in target-selected patients with recurrent glioblastoma (RTOG 0627). Neuro Oncol 17:992–998. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nov011
Reardon DA, Brandes AA, Omuro A et al (2020) Effect of nivolumab vs bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: the checkmate 143 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 6:1003–1010. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024
Ronellenfitsch MW, Steinbach JP, Wick W (2010) Epidermal growth factor receptor and mammalian target of rapamycin as therapeutic targets in malignant glioma: current clinical status and perspectives. Target Oncol 5:183–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-010-0154-5
Stupp R, Hegi ME, Gorlia T et al (2014) Cilengitide combined with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CENTRIC EORTC 26071–22072 study): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15:1100–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70379-1
Weller M, Butowski N, Tran DD et al (2017) Rindopepimut with temozolomide for patients with newly diagnosed, EGFRvIII-expressing glioblastoma (ACT IV): a randomised, double-blind, international phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18:1373–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30517-X
Westphal M, Heese O, Steinbach JP et al (2015) A randomised, open label phase III trial with nimotuzumab, an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody in the treatment of newly diagnosed adult glioblastoma. Eur J Cancer 51:522–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.019
Wick W, Gorlia T, Bady P et al (2016) Phase II Study of radiotherapy and temsirolimus versus radiochemotherapy with temozolomide in patients with Newly diagnosed glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation (EORTC 26082). Clin Cancer Res 22:4797–4806. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-3153
Lombardi G, de Salvo GL, Brandes AA et al (2019) Regorafenib compared with lomustine in patients with relapsed glioblastoma (REGOMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 20:110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30675-2
Wick W, Dettmer S, Berberich A et al (2019) N2M2 (NOA-20) phase I/II trial of molecularly matched targeted therapies plus radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed non-MGMT hypermethylated glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 21:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noy161
Kessler T, Berberich A, Casalini B et al (2020) Molecular profiling-based decision for targeted therapies in IDH wild-type glioblastoma. Neurooncol Adv 2:vdz060. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdz060
McLendon R, Friedman A, Bigner D, Van Meir EG, Brat DJ, Mastrogianakis GM et al (2008) Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature 455:1061–1068. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07385
Horak P, Klink B, Heining C et al (2017) Precision oncology based on omics data: the NCT Heidelberg experience. Int J Cancer 141:877–886. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30828
Horak P, Heining C, Kreutzfeldt S et al (2021) Comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis for guiding therapeutic decisions in patients with rare cancers. Cancer Discov 11:2780–2795. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0126
Brastianos PK, Taylor-Weiner A, Manley PE et al (2014) Exome sequencing identifies BRAF mutations in papillary craniopharyngiomas. Nat Genet 46:161–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2868
Kaley T, Touat M, Subbiah V et al (2018) BRAF inhibition in BRAFV600-mutant gliomas: results from the VE-BASKET study. J Clin Oncol 36:3477–3484. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9990
Krueger DA, Care MM, Holland K et al (2010) Everolimus for subependymal giant-cell astrocytomas in tuberous sclerosis. N Engl J Med 363:1801–1811. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1001671
Roque A, Odia Y (2017) BRAF-V600E mutant papillary craniopharyngioma dramatically responds to combination BRAF and MEK inhibitors. CNS Oncol 6:95–99. https://doi.org/10.2217/cns-2016-0034
Rostami E, Witt Nyström P, Libard S et al (2017) Recurrent papillary craniopharyngioma with BRAFV600E mutation treated with neoadjuvant-targeted therapy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 159:2217–2221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3311-0
Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA et al (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28:1963–1972. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541
Harter PN, Bernatz S, Scholz A et al (2015) Distribution and prognostic relevance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints in human brain metastases. Oncotarget 6:40836–40849
Sahm F, Schrimpf D, Jones DTW et al (2016) Next-generation sequencing in routine brain tumor diagnostics enables an integrated diagnosis and identifies actionable targets. Acta Neuropathol 131:903–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-015-1519-8
Kazdal D, Endris V, Allgäuer M et al (2019) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of panel-based tumor mutational burden in pulmonary adenocarcinoma: separating biology from technical artifacts. J Thorac Oncol 14:1935–1947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2019.07.006
Ronellenfitsch MW, Harter PN, Kirchner M et al (2020) Targetable ERBB2 mutations identified in neurofibroma/schwannoma hybrid nerve sheath tumors. J Clin Invest 130:2488–2495. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI130787
Robinson JT, Thorvaldsdóttir H, Winckler W et al (2011) Integrative genomics viewer. Nat Biotechnol 29:24–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1754
Henze M, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Milker-Zabel S et al (2005) Characterization of 68Ga-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotide kinetics in patients with meningiomas. J Nucl Med 46:763–769
Heppeler A, Froidevaux S, Mäcke HR et al (1999) Radiometal-labelled macrocyclic chelator-derivatised somatostatin analogue with superb tumour-targeting properties and potential for receptor-mediated internal radiotherapy. Chem Euro J 5:1974–1981
Zhernosekov KP, Filosofov DV, Baum RP et al (2007) Processing of generator-produced 68Ga for medical application. J Nucl Med 48:1741–1748. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.040378
Bozkurt MF, Virgolini I, Balogova S et al (2017) Guideline for PET/CT imaging of neuroendocrine neoplasms with 68Ga-DOTA-conjugated somatostatin receptor targeting peptides and 18F-DOPA. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1588–1601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3728-y
Ahluwalia MS, Rauf Y, Li H et al (2021) Randomized phase 2 study of nivolumab (nivo) plus either standard or reduced dose bevacizumab (bev) in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). JCO 39:2015. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.2015
Cloughesy TF, Yoshimoto K, Nghiemphu P et al (2008) Antitumor activity of rapamycin in a Phase I trial for patients with recurrent PTEN-deficient glioblastoma. PLoS Med 5:e8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050008
Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE et al (2007) Phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma. Clin Cancer Res 13:1253–1259. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2309
Chamberlain MC (2013) Salvage therapy with BRAF inhibitors for recurrent pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: a retrospective case series. J Neurooncol 114:237–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1176-5
Kieran MW (2014) Targeting BRAF in pediatric brain tumors. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. https://doi.org/10.14694/EdBook_AM.2014.34.e436
Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A et al (2012) Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med 367:1694–1703. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1210093
Schreck KC, Grossman SA, Pratilas CA (2019) BRAF mutations and the utility of RAF and MEK inhibitors in primary brain tumors. Cancers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11091262
Noeparast A, Teugels E, Giron P et al (2017) Non-V600 BRAF mutations recurrently found in lung cancer predict sensitivity to the combination of Trametinib and Dabrafenib. Oncotarget 8:60094–60108
Richtig G, Hoeller C, Kashofer K et al (2017) Beyond the BRAFV600E hotspot: biology and clinical implications of rare BRAF gene mutations in melanoma patients. Br J Dermatol 177:936–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15436
Hopkins BD, Pauli C, Du X et al (2018) Suppression of insulin feedback enhances the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors. Nature 560:499–503. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0343-4
Bahleda R, Meric-Bernstam F, Goyal L et al (2020) Phase I, first-in-human study of futibatinib, a highly selective, irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol 31:1405–1412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.018
Féliz L, Asatiani E, Lihou C et al (2019) Abstract A077: FIGHT-207: Phase 2 study of pemigatinib in patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic or unresectable solid tumor malignancies harboring activating fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) gene alterations. Mol Cancer Ther 18:A077–A077
Dahlman KB, Xia J, Hutchinson K et al (2012) BRAF(L597) mutations in melanoma are associated with sensitivity to MEK inhibitors. Cancer Discov 2:791–797. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0097
Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Fadul CE (2007) Recurrent meningioma: salvage therapy with long-acting somatostatin analogue. Neurology 69:969–973. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000271382.62776.b7
Bartolomei M, Bodei L, de Cicco C et al (2009) Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with (90)Y-DOTATOC in recurrent meningioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:1407–1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1115-z
Bertolini F, Pecchi A, Stefani A et al (2015) Everolimus effectively blocks pulmonary metastases from meningioma. Neuro Oncol 17:1301–1302. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nov116
Graillon T, Defilles C, Mohamed A et al (2015) Combined treatment by octreotide and everolimus: octreotide enhances inhibitory effect of everolimus in aggressive meningiomas. J Neurooncol 124:33–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-015-1812-3
Pachow D, Andrae N, Kliese N et al (2013) mTORC1 inhibitors suppress meningioma growth in mouse models. Clin Cancer Res 19:1180–1189. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1904
Shih KC, Chowdhary S, Rosenblatt P et al (2016) A phase II trial of bevacizumab and everolimus as treatment for patients with refractory, progressive intracranial meningioma. J Neurooncol 129:281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-016-2172-3
Rampias T, Karagiannis D, Avgeris M et al (2019) The lysine-specific methyltransferase KMT2C/MLL3 regulates DNA repair components in cancer. EMBO Rep. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201846821
Franz DN, Belousova E, Sparagana S et al (2016) Long-term use of everolimus in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex: final results from the EXIST-1 study. PLoS ONE 11:e0158476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158476
Brastianos PK, Shankar GM, Gill CM et al (2016) Dramatic response of BRAF V600E mutant papillary craniopharyngioma to targeted therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv310
Aylwin SJB, Bodi I, Beaney R (2016) Pronounced response of papillary craniopharyngioma to treatment with vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor. Pituitary 19:544–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-015-0663-4
Taipale M, Krykbaeva I, Whitesell L et al (2013) Chaperones as thermodynamic sensors of drug-target interactions reveal kinase inhibitor specificities in living cells. Nat Biotechnol 31:630–637. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2620
Franz DN, Belousova E, Sparagana S et al (2014) Everolimus for subependymal giant cell astrocytoma in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex: 2-year open-label extension of the randomised EXIST-1 study. Lancet Oncol 15:1513–1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70489-9
Chen X, Wu Q, Tan L et al (2014) Combined PKC and MEK inhibition in uveal melanoma with GNAQ and GNA11 mutations. Oncogene 33:4724–4734. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2013.418
Bähr O, Hattingen E, Rieger J et al (2011) Bevacizumab-induced tumor calcifications as a surrogate marker of outcome in patients with glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 13:1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nor099
Gladwish A, Koh E-S, Hoisak J et al (2011) Evaluation of early imaging response criteria in glioblastoma multiforme. Radiat Oncol 6:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-121
Burger MC, Ronellenfitsch MW, Lorenz NI et al (2017) Dabrafenib in patients with recurrent, BRAF V600E mutated malignant glioma and leptomeningeal disease. Oncol Rep 38:3291–3296. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2017.6013
Dyson K, Rivera-Zengotita M, Kresak J et al (2016) FGFR1 N546K and H3F3A K27M mutations in a diffuse leptomeningeal tumour with glial and neuronal markers. Histopathology 69:704–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12983
Picca A, Berzero G, Bielle F et al (2018) FGFR1 actionable mutations, molecular specificities, and outcome of adult midline gliomas. Neurology 90:e2086–e2094. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005658
Schüller U, Iglauer P, Dorostkar MM et al (2021) Mutations within FGFR1 are associated with superior outcome in a series of 83 diffuse midline gliomas with H3F3A K27M mutations. Acta Neuropathol 141:323–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-020-02259-y
Hussain F, Horbinski CM, Chmura SJ et al (2018) Response to BRAF/MEK inhibition after progression with BRAF inhibition in a patient with anaplastic pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. Neurologist 23:163–166. https://doi.org/10.1097/NRL.0000000000000194
Harter PN, Jennewein L, Baumgarten P et al (2015) Immunohistochemical assessment of phosphorylated mTORC1-pathway proteins in human brain tumors. PLoS ONE 10:e0127123. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127123
Ronellenfitsch MW, Zeiner PS, Mittelbronn M et al (2018) Akt and mTORC1 signaling as predictive biomarkers for the EGFR antibody nimotuzumab in glioblastoma. Acta Neuropathol Commun 6:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40478-018-0583-4
Sicklick JK, Kato S, Okamura R et al (2019) Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study. Nat Med 25:744–750. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0407-5
Johnson BE, Mazor T, Hong C et al (2014) Mutational analysis reveals the origin and therapy-driven evolution of recurrent glioma. Science 343:189–193. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239947
Lavacchi D, Roviello G, D’Angelo A (2020) Tumor-agnostic treatment for cancer: when how is better than where. Clin Drug Investig 40:519–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-020-00915-5
Acknowledgements
We thank Sandra Verena Klein from the UCT for her support in data collection.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The Dr. Senckenberg Foundation supports the Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Neurooncology. ALL was funded by the Mildred Scheel Career Center Frankfurt (Deutsche Krebshilfe). ID has received a “Clinician Scientist” fellowship from the Else Kröner-Forschungskolleg (EKF). KF was funded by the Mildred Scheel Career Center Frankfurt (Deutsche Krebshilfe) and the Frankfurt Research Funding (FFF) program ‘Nachwuchswissenschaftler’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ALL, JPS and MWR contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ALL and MWR and all authors commented on previous versions of the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
JPS has received honoraria for lectures or advisory board participation or consulting or travel grants from Abbvie, Roche, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medac, Mundipharma and UCB. MWR has received a research grant from UCB.
Ethical approval
The study, clinical data collection, histological, immunohistochemical and molecular pathological analyses were approved by the institutional Review Boards of the University Cancer Center Frankfurt (UCT) and the Ethical Committee at the University Hospital Frankfurt (ethics committee at the University Hospital Frankfurt; reference number SNO-3–2021).
Informed consent
Patient data used in this study was provided by the University Cancer Center Frankfurt (UCT). Informed consent for data collection was obtained from all patients registered in the UCT database.
Consent for publication
Patients registered in the UCT database signed informed consent regarding publishing their data in anonymized form.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
11060_2022_4049_MOESM1_ESM.jpg
Supplementary file1 Survival of brain tumor patients under molecular matched targeted therapies. A, B: Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with at least stable disease (SD) and of patients with progressive disease (PD) treated with a molecular matched therapy. In contrast to Figure 4 all molecular matched therapies are calculated. Tick marks indicate censored patients (JPG 228 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Luger, AL., König, S., Samp, P.F. et al. Molecular matched targeted therapies for primary brain tumors—a single center retrospective analysis. J Neurooncol 159, 243–259 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04049-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04049-w