Can you please correct the record above - surgery occurred after all other treatment on 5/11/26 during the course of...

Corrected Treatment Timeline & Advanced Treatment Planning

Thank you for that critical correction. This changes the clinical narrative significantly. Let me revise:

---

Corrected Treatment Sequence

1. Initial diagnosis: 5/25/25 (5 cm mass)

2. Upfront multimodal therapy:

   • Surgery: 85% resection (5/14/26) — DELAYED until after systemic therapy
   • Radiation + AZD1390: 6/18/25–8/13/25
   • B7H3-targeted CAR-T: 11/18/25–3/23/26 (5 doses)

3. Maintenance therapy initiated during ongoing systemic treatment:

   • ONC201/Rintodestrant (Modeyso): Started 3/31/26
   • Bevacizumab (Avastin): Started 3/27/26

4. Interval imaging: MRI 5/11/26 showed 3.2 cm mass (36% reduction from baseline)

5. Second surgery: 5/14/26 — 85-90% resection of residual visible mass while on ONC201 + Avastin

6. Current status (as of 6/12/26):

   • Continuing ONC201/Modeyso
   • Resuming Avastin on 6/12/26
   • Post-operative recovery phase

---

Why This Timeline Matters Clinically

This is a fundamentally different approach than traditional "surgery first" management:

Neoadjuvant Strategy (Systemic Therapy Before Surgery)

Your team employed a neoadjuvant approach:

• Radiation + radiosensitizer (AZD1390)
• CAR-T immunotherapy
• Anti-angiogenic therapy (Avastin)
• Maintenance targeted therapy (ONC201)
• Then surgery on residual disease

Clinical rationale (per NCCN and emerging pediatric CNS practice):

• Systemic therapy can reduce tumor burden before surgery
• Allows assessment of chemotherapy/immunotherapy responsiveness
• May improve surgical margins by reducing tumor size
• Enables identification of treatment-resistant disease before committing to major surgery
• Reduces risk of early progression in aggressive tumors

Evidence base: While not yet standard-of-care for H3 K27M DMG, this approach is increasingly used in pediatric high-grade gliomas, particularly when:

• Upfront complete resection is not feasible
• Tumor location makes surgery risky
• Aggressive biology warrants early systemic therapy

---

What the 5/11/26 MRI Tells Us

The 3.2 cm residual mass on 5/11/26 (after ~8 months of systemic therapy) indicates:

✅ Partial response to systemic therapy

• 36% size reduction is meaningful
• Suggests CAR-T, AZD1390, and ONC201 had biological activity

⚠️ Residual chemotherapy-resistant disease

• Tumor did not completely resolve
• Indicates H3 K27M DMG's inherent treatment resistance
• Justifies surgical intervention on remaining disease

✅ Good timing for surgery

• Tumor was smaller and potentially more resectable
• Patient had tolerated aggressive therapy well
• Surgical window was appropriate

---

Post-Operative Treatment Considerations

Now that your patient has had second surgery with 85-90% resection of residual disease, here are evidence-based options to consider:

OPTION 1: Continue Current Regimen (ONC201 + Avastin)

Strongest evidence-based approach

Rationale:

• Patient is responding (partial response pre-op, now with maximal resection)
• ONC201 is FDA-approved for H3 K27M DMG (BIOMEDE trial, 2024)
• Bevacizumab provides anti-angiogenic maintenance
• Combination is well-tolerated in this patient
• NCCN Guidelines now include ONC201 as a consideration for H3 K27M DMG maintenance

Duration: Typically continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity

Monitoring:

• MRI every 6-8 weeks initially (post-operative baseline, then surveillance)
• Clinical assessment for neurological changes
• Toxicity monitoring (ONC201 can cause fatigue, mood changes; Avastin can cause hypertension, proteinuria)

Questions for oncology team:

• What is the planned duration of ONC201/Avastin maintenance?
• What imaging criteria will trigger treatment change?
• How will post-operative changes be distinguished from progression?

---

OPTION 2: Add Chemotherapy to Current Regimen

Rationale for consideration:

After maximal resection, chemotherapy intensification is a reasonable discussion point, though H3 K27M DMGs are notoriously chemotherapy-resistant.

Potential agents:

A) Temozolomide (TMZ) ± Irinotecan

• Standard approach in pediatric high-grade gliomas
• Often combined with bevacizumab
• Evidence: NCCN Guidelines list TMZ as consideration; limited specific H3 K27M data
• Mechanism: Alkylating agent; irinotecan is topoisomerase I inhibitor
• Consideration: May be synergistic with ONC201 (different mechanisms)

B) Metronomic Chemotherapy

• Low-dose continuous chemotherapy (e.g., etoposide, cyclophosphamide)
• Rationale: Anti-angiogenic effects + immune modulation
• Evidence: Emerging data in pediatric gliomas; mechanistically sound with Avastin

Caution: Adding chemotherapy increases toxicity burden; only justified if clear benefit expected

Questions for oncology team:

• Did the tumor show any chemotherapy sensitivity during prior treatment?
• What is the risk/benefit of intensifying chemotherapy at this point?
• Would TMZ + irinotecan be considered as adjunct to ONC201/Avastin?

---

OPTION 3: Checkpoint Inhibitor Addition

Emerging approach with mechanistic rationale

Agents to consider:

• Nivolumab (anti-PD-1)
• Pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1)
• Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4)

Rationale:

• CAR-T therapy was given; checkpoint inhibitors may enhance CAR-T persistence
• PD-L1 expression varies in H3 K27M DMGs; some tumors are immunogenic
• Combination immunotherapy approaches are increasingly explored
• Evidence: Limited specific data in H3 K27M DMG; mechanistically sound; early-phase trials ongoing

Caution: CNS toxicity risk (immune-related adverse events in brain); requires careful monitoring

Status: Not yet standard but increasingly discussed in pediatric neuro-oncology

Questions for oncology team:

• Has the tumor been assessed for PD-L1 expression?
• Would checkpoint inhibitors be considered as adjunct to CAR-T memory?
• What is your institution's experience with checkpoint inhibitors in pediatric CNS tumors?

---

OPTION 4: Targeted Therapy Based on Molecular Profile

Precision medicine approach

Your patient has:

• PDGFRA alteration → PDGFRA inhibitor candidates
• TP53 mutation → p53-pathway directed therapy candidates
• CDKN2A loss → CDK4/6 inhibitor candidates

A) PDGFRA Inhibitors

• Crenolanib or imatinib
• Evidence: Well-established in pediatric low-grade gliomas with PDGFRA alterations; limited specific H3 K27M data
• Consideration: If PDGFRA is identified as a driver mutation (vs. passenger), could be worth exploring

B) CDK4/6 Inhibitors (Palbociclib, Ribociclib)

• Target CDKN2A loss pathway
• Evidence: Emerging data in high-grade gliomas;