Chang, Susan Marina

Abstract This review explores the pivotal role of preanalytical variables in bringing liquid biopsy approaches into the clinic for brain tumors. Preanalytical variables encompass a range of critical issues, from blood sample collection and handling to the impact of tumor heterogeneity and patient-specific factors. These variables introduce challenges such as false positives, false negatives, and variability in the analysis of tumor signals, which can hinder the diagnostic and prognostic utility of liquid biopsies. Understanding the nuances of preanalytical variables is essential for the successful implementation of liquid biopsy in clinical settings. This paper delves into strategies aimed at mitigating the influence of preanalytical variables by emphasizing the importance of standardized sample collection protocols, optimized sample processing and storage, quality control measures, and the integration of multiple liquid biopsy modalities.

Abstract Background Instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes (PRO) should generate high-quality evidence. Reliable PRO evidence is essential to policymakers, in conjunction with outcomes such as survival and radiological response, to understand the net clinical benefit of antitumor treatments. This study aimed to establish the content validity of 215 identified PRO measures used in patients with brain tumors. Methods A survey (n = 148 items) was developed reflecting aspects of the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Patients with brain tumors, their proxies, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) were asked to rate each survey item on relevance. An item was considered a relevant issue if ≥25% of the patients or proxies or ≥50% of the HCPs considered that item to be an issue. Next, all items in the identified PRO measures were linked to ICF and relevant items in the survey, and the percentage of content coverage was calculated. Results In total, 114 patients, 71 proxies, and 65 HCPs from different countries completed the survey. Fifty-six of 148 (37.8%) items in the survey were considered relevant. The most important aspects mentioned by both patients and proxies were difficulty concentrating, difficulty remembering, multitasking, and handling stress. Depending on the definition, between 35% and 49% of PRO measures were considered to have sufficient content validity (≥80% coverage). Conclusion The content validity was insufficient in more than half of the identified PRO measures, particularly multidimensional measures. Future research should investigate whether different approaches to PRO assessment better meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Abstract Despite major strides in cancer research, care, and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Groups underrepresented in medicine (URM) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black and Latino Americans represent 29% of the population but only reflect 8% of oncology clinical trial participants. Recent studies have shown that this disparity is also present in neuro-oncology as women, Black, and Latino Americans remain under-accrued in clinical trials. Brain tumor patients already face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific conditions–such as impaired motor function, cognition, language deficits, and caregiver dependency–which pose additional difficulties in clinical trial consent, enrollment, and adherence. As part of this collaborative initiative, we evaluated the impact of how a lack of diversity in cancer research is detrimental to scientific discovery and propose interventions focused on improving URM engagement with clinical research. Recommendations include the creation of inclusive trial design at the onset, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, and equitable access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials. Additionally, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual and engagement with patient and community stakeholders will ultimately help to diversify trial participants. Lastly, diversification and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology workforce, including all personnel involved in clinical research, will help to minimize bias, promote concordant care, and assist with developing sustainable solutions. The diversification of participation in neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. The lack of diversity in clinical trials can contribute to improper generalizability of treatment efficacy, resulting in potentially harmful practices. Equitable access and inclusion of URM brain tumor patients will not only enhance research discoveries but will also result in improved patient care for all cancer patients.

Abstract Background There is an extensive literature highlighting the utility of blood-based liquid biopsies in several extracranial tumors for diagnosis and monitoring. Methods The RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) group developed a multidisciplinary international Task Force to review the English literature on liquid biopsy in gliomas focusing on the most frequently used techniques, that is circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells, and extracellular vesicles in blood and CSF. Results ctDNA has a higher sensitivity and capacity to represent the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in comparison to circulating tumor cells. Exosomes have the advantages to cross an intact blood-brain barrier and carry also RNA, miRNA, and proteins. Several clinical applications of liquid biopsies are suggested: to establish a diagnosis when tissue is not available, monitor the residual disease after surgery, distinguish progression from pseudoprogression, and predict the outcome. Conclusions There is a need for standardization of biofluid collection, choice of an analyte, and detection strategies along with rigorous testing in future clinical trials to validate findings and enable entry into clinical practice.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel–novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel–novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel–novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel–novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design.

Abstract On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

AbstractBackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24–May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.

Abstract To assess the impact of the pandemic on the field, we performed an international web-based survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents from April 24 through May 17. Of 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were in the US, and 314 (55%) were international. 80.4% were affiliated with academic institutions. 94% respondents reported changes in clinical practice; 95% reported conversion to telemedicine for at least some appointments. However, almost 10% practitioners felt the need to see patients in person specifically because of billing concerns and perceived institutional pressure. Over 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. 67% practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial: 53% suspended phase II and 62% suspended phase III trial enrollment. 71% clinicians feared for their or their families’ safety, specifically because of their clinical duties. 20% percent said they did not have enough PPE to work safely; about the same percentage were unhappy with their institutions’ response to the pandemic. 43% believed the pandemic would negatively affect their academic career, and 52% fellowship program directors were worried about losing funding for their training programs. While 69% respondents reported increased stress, 44% were offered no psychosocial support. 37% had their salary reduced. 36% researchers had to temporarily close their laboratories. In contrast, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient and family satisfaction, quality of communication, and use of technology to deliver care and interactions with other practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has altered standard treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options for patients. In some cases, clinicians felt institutional pressure to continue conducting billable in-person visits when telemedicine visits would have sufficed. A lack of institutional support created anxiety among clinicians and researchers. We make specific recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward.

Abstract Despite the widespread clinical use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI, DSC-MRI methodology has not been standardized, hindering its utilization for response assessment in multicenter trials. Recently, the DSC-MRI Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition issued an updated consensus DSC-MRI protocol compatible with the standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) for high-grade gliomas that is increasingly used in the clinical setting and is the default MRI protocol for the National Clinical Trials Network. After reviewing the basis for controversy over DSC-MRI protocols, this paper provides evidence-based best practices for clinical DSC-MRI as determined by the Committee, including pulse sequence (gradient echo vs spin echo), BTIP-compliant contrast agent dosing (preload and bolus), flip angle (FA), echo time (TE), and post-processing leakage correction. In summary, full-dose preload, full-dose bolus dosing using intermediate (60°) FA and field strength-dependent TE (40–50 ms at 1.5 T, 20–35 ms at 3 T) provides overall best accuracy and precision for cerebral blood volume estimates. When single-dose contrast agent usage is desired, no-preload, full-dose bolus dosing using low FA (30°) and field strength-dependent TE provides excellent performance, with reduced contrast agent usage and elimination of potential systematic errors introduced by variations in preload dose and incubation time.