Coons, Stephen Joel

Abstract BACKGROUND Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9802 was a phase III trial for patients with centrally confirmed LGG (WHO grade II). Participants ³ 40 years or those with neurosurgeon defined less than gross total resection (GTR) were randomized to radiotherapy (RT) +/- PCV. In a separate cohort, adults age < 40 years with neurosurgeon defined GTR were observed by MRI every 6 months without adjuvant therapy. At last report, outcome for the observation cohort was immature with median follow-up of only 4.4 years. Here, we present mature outcomes for the observation arm. METHODS Eligible adults (as above) were observed by MRI every 6 months. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and estimated hazard ratios to characterize the prognostic variables. RESULTS There were 111 eligible patients (median age 30; median KPS = 100). Median follow-up was 16.1 years with 71 (64%) alive at the last follow-up. 79 patients (71%) had progressed with median PFS of 6.9 years. 5, 10, and 15 year-PFS and OS rates were 54%, 39%, 28% and 94%, 77%, and 65%. 1p19q status was codeleted in 32%, IDH1/2 mutant in 78% and MGMT promoter methylated in 39% of tested cases. Multivariate Cox analyses showed that preoperative tumor size ³ 4 cm (HR = 2.43 for PFS, p = 0.001; HR = 2.58 for death, p = 0.016) and residual disease on imaging ³ 1 cm (HR = 2.97 for PFS, P < 0.001; HR = 2.02 for death, p = 0.05) were associated with worse outcomes. Analyses based on molecular results will be presented. CONCLUSION A subset of low-grade gliomas can be observed after the initial resection based on younger age, smaller tumor size, and no residual disease on neuroimaging. This can likely be further refined by prognostic molecular markers. Patients with the most favorable prognostic factors can avoid or delay the acute and long-term side effects of RT and chemotherapy for several years.

Examining the patient's subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.