Ser, Hazal

Abstract BACKGROUND CNS ependymal tumors rarely demonstrate mixed subependymal and ependymal pathology. The clinical course of these tumors is difficult to predict, but prior studies have identified TERT mutations and loss of chromosome 6 as poor prognostic factors in these tumors when located in the posterior fossa. METHODS In this retrospective single-institution study, patients with a diagnosis of mixed subependymoma/ependymoma were identified and chart reviewed to describe demographics, pathological findings, treatment courses and clinical outcomes. RESULTS Eleven patients (median age 57, 2 female, 9 male) were identified. Ten tumors were in the posterior fossa and 1 in the cervical spine. At diagnosis, 2 underwent gross total resection, 8 underwent subtotal resection, and 1 was only biopsied. Radiotherapy was administered to 5 patients at initial diagnosis (54Gy in 30 fractions). Systemic therapy (temozolomide and bevacizumab) was administered at recurrence to 2 patients. Loss of chromosome 6 was present in 5 /11 patients and TERT mutations were present in 4/11 patients, with both present in 3/11 patients. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 90.1 months (95% CI: 90.1–NA), with 3 progression events observed at 22, 90, and 107 months. Median follow-up duration was 27.9 months. Receiving radiotherapy had a longer mPFS (98 vs 22 months, p=0.15), although non-significant. At the time of data cut-off none of the patients were deceased. CONCLUSIONS Mixed subependymoma/ependymoma is a rare diagnosis with varying clinical outcomes. Our case series demonstrated that the majority of patients did not exhibit the previously identified poor prognostic factors. Although non-significant due to limited case numbers, radiotherapy was suggestive of longer mPFS.

Abstract BACKGROUND The majority of pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) are effectively managed with medical therapy, surgery, and/or radiation therapy; however, a subset of pituitary adenomas exhibit aggressive behavior. Temozolomide is thought to be an effective treatment option for patients with PitNETs. METHODS We identified and retrospectively reviewed 11 patients with pituitary tumors treated with temozolomide. We then conducted a review of the literature, combining 114 previously published cases with our cohort. RESULTS 125 cases were identified with diagnoses of pituitary adenomas (n=45), aggressive pituitary tumors (n=61), and pituitary carcinoma (n=19) treated with temozolomide. 79 patients were male (68.1%) with a median age of 47.5 (range 9-72). A variety of tumor types were represented: 50 corticotroph adenomas (40.7%), 37 prolactinomas (30.1%), 22 hormone nonfunctioning adenomas (17.9%), 8 somatotroph adenomas (6.5%), 6 other functioning adenomas (4.9%), and 2 cases where the functional status was not mentioned. Median treatment duration was 9 cycles (n=91, 150-200 mg/m2 days 1-5, 28-day cycles; n=2, 75 mg/m2, days 1-21, 28-day cycles; n=1, 75 mg/m2 daily). 27 patients received concurrent therapy with a dopamine agonist/somatostatin analogue (n=10), other chemotherapy agent (n=9) or radiotherapy (n=8). Radiographic responses included stable disease (n=40), partial response (n=35), complete response (n=8), and progressive disease (n=30). Hormonal responses included complete response (n=13), partial response (n=32), and no response (n=16). 22 patients (47.8%; out of 46 patients where progression/recurrence was assessed) experienced progression/recurrence following temozolomide initiation with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 24 months. There was no significant association between MGMT methylation status and radiological or hormonal response. No unexpected toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION In this cohort, temozolomide was well-tolerated with a median PFS of 24 months. MGMT methylation status did not predict temozolomide response. Temozolomide is an option with a survival benefit for patients with PitNETs.

e13893 Background: For individuals with CNS tumors who have experience difficulties with in-person (IP) evaluations due to disease-related neurologic disability or the costs associated with travel, telehealth (TH) offers a convenient and timely alternative for accessing specialized neuro-oncology care. We report our institution’s experience with telehealth utilization in neuro-oncology. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had at least one neuro-oncology telehealth visit between August 2021 and May 2024 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Reasons for visits, outcomes of appointments, acute care utilization following visits was reviewed. Results: A total of 660 patients who had at least one TH visit between August 2021 and May 2024 were included in the analysis. Median age was 56 (range 20-98), 49% were female, and 92% were white. Most patients resided in the US Midwest (84%), followed by the South (8%), West (5%), Northeast (1%), and US Territories (< 1%). Less than two percent were international patients. The most common primary visit diagnosis was glioblastoma (GBM, 26%), followed by astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (17%), meningioma (17%), oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant, 1p/19q codeleted (7%). Of 6657 visits reviewed, 2745 (41%) were conducted via TH. Telehealth visits served various purposes, including consultation for newly diagnosed tumors or abnormal MRIs (n = 26), second opinion for an established tumor diagnosis (n = 119), discussion about clinical trial participation (n = 108), tumor-related treatment discussions (n = 719), chemotherapy education (n = 161), new symptom assessment (n = 117), symptom management (n = 366), and tumor surveillance (n = 1694). Outcomes from telehealth visits included enrollment in clinical trials (n = 28), proceeding with tumor-directed surgery (n = 46), initiation of radiation therapy (n = 88), starting or changing systemic therapy (n = 377), continuing existing systemic therapy (n = 932), transition to supportive care (n = 45), tumor diagnostic workup (n = 28), continuation of tumor surveillance (n = 1254). Acute care utilization, defined as an emergency department visit or hospitalization within one month of an appointment, was the same following telehealth visits compared to in-person visits (6.9% for IP vs 5% for TH, p = 0.507). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that telehealth can effectively support all aspects of neuro-oncology care, ranging from initial diagnosis discussions to systemic therapy management and transitions to supportive care. Telehealth offers a convenient and accessible method of care delivery option for patients faced with neurologic illness. Additionally, THs do not lead to increased acute care utilization compared to IP evaluations.

Abstract BACKGROUND BRAF pathway alterations are frequent in glial/neuroepithelial tumors. BRAF-targeted therapy with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) and/or MEK inhibitors (MEKi) has proven efficacy in clinical trials, though mainly enrolling pediatric patients. We sought to investigate real-world data for adult patients with BRAF-pathway mutant glial/neuroepithelial neoplasms treated with BRAFi/MEKi. METHODS Adults with BRAF-pathway mutated glial/neuroepithelial neoplasms treated with BRAFi/MEKi were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS Five patients (n=4 female, median age at diagnosis 36) were identified (tumor types: glioblastoma n=1, high-grade astrocytoma with epithelioid features n=1, low-grade neuroepithelial tumor n=1, pilocytic astrocytoma n=1, pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma n=1). Four had BRAF V600E and one had NF1 p.S2687Cfs*5 mutant tumors. Prior to targeted therapy initiation, patients underwent a median 2.4 treatments including surgery (n=4), radiation therapy (n=4), chemotherapy (temozolomide n=4; carboplatin/vincristine n=1). BRAF-targeted therapies included dabrafenib/trametinib (n=4), binimetinib/encorafenib (n=2), binimetinib (n=2). One NF1-mutant glioblastoma received binimetinib followed by binimetinib/bevacizumab. Median BRAFi/MEKi treatment was 15.2 months (range: 6-36 months). Toxicities included leukopenia (n=3), peripheral edema (n=1), reduced ejection fraction (n=1), skin rash (n=5), transaminitis (n=1) with all patients requiring dose reductions and 3 cases requiring discontinuation. Among patients where BRAFi/MEKi was discontinued due to toxicity, 2 received other treatments at progression, then switched to a different BRAFi/MEKi combination, which they tolerated (duration 6-10months). Best radiographic response was partial response, noted in 3 patients treated with dabrafenib/trametinib. Four patients remain alive and continue BRAFi/MEKi. CONCLUSIONS In this cohort of heavily-pretreated patients with glial/neuroepithelial neoplasms, BRAF-targeted therapy was associated with durable responses. Interestingly, two patients who were unable to tolerate one combination of BRAFi/MEKi were able to tolerate a different combination with sustained response. Our findings support ongoing use of BRAF targeted therapy for CNS tumors. Optimal timing and duration of treatment requires further prospective evaluation in adult patients.

Abstract BACKGROUND Pituitary adenomas are often effectively managed with medical therapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. However, up to 15% of pituitary neoplasms exhibit rapid growth, invasive behavior, or, rarely, metastasize despite optimal standard treatments. Temozolomide is associated with a survival benefit for patients with these aggressive pituitary tumors. METHODS We present a case series of 8 patients with an aggressive pituitary tumor (APT) or pituitary carcinoma (PC) treated with temozolomide. RESULTS Eight patients (3 female, median age at diagnosis 44) with APT (n=6) or PC (n=2) were treated. A variety of pituitary tumor types were represented (1 prolactinoma, 5 corticotroph adenomas, 1 gonadotroph adenoma, 1 thyrotropinoma). Prior to temozolomide initiation, patients underwent a median 5 treatments including medical management (n=4), surgery (n=7), radiation therapy (n=7). Temozolomide was started at median 3.5 recurrence. Median treatment duration was 6 cycles (n=6, 150-200 mg/m2 days 1-5, 28-day cycles; n=1, 75 mg/m2, days 1-21, 28-day cycles). Seven patients experienced progression after temozolomide treatment, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months. One patient remains on treatment, progression-free at 5 months. MGMT methylation status was assessed for 3 tumors. Among 2 patients with MGMT promoter methylated tumors, PFS was 4 months for one patient, the other remains on treatment. For one patient with MGMT promoter unmethylated corticotroph adenoma, PFS was 9 months. No ≥ grade 4 toxicities were noted. Most common toxicities were nausea (n=5), thrombocytopenia (n=3), and fatigue (n=2). CONCLUSION In this group of heavily pretreated patients, temozolomide monotherapy was well-tolerated and associated with median PFS of 4 months. Interestingly, PC patients had longer PFS at 9 months and 24 months. Our findings support use of single-agent temozolomide chemotherapy for patients with APT/PC, but further prospective analysis is needed to identify patients more likely to benefit from treatment and optimal timing of chemotherapy initiation.