Herrlinger, Ulrich

Abstract Background Two methods combining survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in glioma trials to calculate the “net clinical benefit” were evaluated: Quality-adjusted effect sizes (QASES) and joint modeling (JM). Methods The net clinical benefit in two trials was calculated as proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) and HRQoL between the experimental arm and standard treatment arm were calculated, while the relative emphasis placed on survival/HRQoL varied. JM allows simultaneous modeling of HRQoL and OS/PFS. Results In the EORTC 26951 trial, combined radiochemotherapy significantly prolonged OS (difference 11.7 months), but also resulted in more patients experiencing clinically relevant worsening (≥10 points) in appetite loss and nausea/vomiting shortly after treatment. Using QASES, the survival benefit of additional procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) decreased from 42.3 months to 29.5 and 28.2 months when accounting for appetite loss and nausea/vomiting, respectively. JM analyses resulted in a loss of the beneficial effect of additional PCV between 13% and 24% when adjusting for different HRQoL parameters. The EORTC 22033 trial showed no significant PFS difference between radiotherapy or temozolomide alone (46 vs 39 months), nor clinically relevant differences in HRQoL. JM analyses also showed no significant association between PFS and HRQoL scales/items, whereas QASES showed that temozolomide alone was more favorable when considering symptom burden (47–49 instead of 39 months). Conclusions Both methods resulted in different outcomes, but adjusting for the impact of treatment on HRQoL resulted in theoretically reduced survival benefits.

Abstract Background We aimed to develop a gene expression–based prognostic signature for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) wild-type glioblastoma using clinical trial datasets representative of glioblastoma clinical trial populations. Methods Samples were collected from newly diagnosed patients with IDH wild-type glioblastoma in the ARTE, TAMIGA, EORTC 26101 (referred to as “ATE”), AVAglio, and GLARIUS trials, or treated at UCLA. Transcriptional profiling was achieved with the NanoString gene expression platform. To identify genes prognostic for overall survival (OS), we built an elastic net penalized Cox proportional hazards regression model using the discovery ATE dataset. For validation in independent datasets (AVAglio, GLARIUS, UCLA), we combined elastic net–selected genes into a robust z-score signature (ATE score) to overcome gene expression platform differences between discovery and validation cohorts. Results NanoString data were available from 512 patients in the ATE dataset. Elastic net identified a prognostic signature of 9 genes (CHEK1, GPR17, IGF2BP3, MGMT, MTHFD1L, PTRH2, SOX11, S100A9, and TFRC). Translating weighted elastic net scores to the ATE score conserved the prognostic value of the genes. The ATE score was prognostic for OS in the ATE dataset (P < 0.0001), as expected, and in the validation cohorts (AVAglio, P < 0.0001; GLARIUS, P = 0.02; UCLA, P = 0.004). The ATE score remained prognostic following adjustment for O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status and corticosteroid use at baseline. A positive correlation between ATE score and proneural/proliferative subtypes was observed in patients with MGMT non-methylated promoter status. Conclusions The ATE score showed prognostic value and may enable clinical trial stratification for IDH wild-type glioblastoma.

Abstract Low-grade primary central nervous system lymphoma is a very rare subtype of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), for which almost no data is currently available. The purpose of this retrospective study was to characterize the clinical presentation, course and outcome of patients with low-grade PCNSL. Forty patients (18 male, 22 female) from 18 cancer centers in five countries were identified with a median age of 58 (range, 19–78) years and a median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 (range, 0–4). The mean time to diagnosis was 14.8 months (range, 0.25–84). Thirty-two patients (80%) had a B-cell and eight a T-cell lymphoma. Thirty-seven patients (92.5%) showed involvement of a cerebral hemisphere or deeper brain structures, while two evidenced only leptomeningeal involvement, and one patient had spinal cord disease. Treatment was performed in 39 patients: chemotherapy and radiotherapy in 15 (38%), radiotherapy alone in 12 (30%), chemotherapy alone in 10 (25%), and tumor resection alone in two. The median progression-free survival (PFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OAS) were 61.5 (range, 0–204), 130 (range, 1–204), and 79 (range, 1–204) months, respectively. An age ≥60 years was associated with a shorter PFS (P = .009), DSS (P = .015) and OAS (P = .001) in multivariate analysis. Low-grade PCNSL differ from the high-grade subtype in pathological, clinical and radiological features. In this study, the long-term outcome was better as compared to the results obtained in PCNSL in general with age ≥60 years adversely affecting survival.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. Two methods that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data: Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM) were applied to gain insight in the net clinical benefit. METHODS The net clinical benefit in one RCT (EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone) was calculated as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (42.3 vs. 30.6 months). The percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 9.7 months up till 5.5 months, given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

Abstract BACKGROUND The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to inform glioma patients and facilitate shared decision making. We applied two methods (i.e. Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM)) that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data into one outcome, to gain insight in the net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy. In addition, we assessed if both methods result in similar interpretations. MATERIAL AND METHODS We calculated the net clinical benefit in one randomized controlled trial, EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone, as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. Next, the combined effect size can be determined by weighing the emphasis put on survival or HRQoL (e.g. survival more important). JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (difference of 10.8 months). In contrast, the percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. The QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 10.8 months to 6.8 months when adjusted for the HRQoL scales/items, when given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.