Wefel, Jeffrey S

Abstract There is a growing number of cancer survivors given improvement in early cancer diagnosis, therapeutics, and supportive care strategies. Cognitive impairment is among the most common and clinically significant symptoms managed by cancer survivors, which negatively impacts quality of life, functional and occupational status for patients and their care partners. Cancer-related cognitive impairment is often multifactorial—impacted by patient and cancer-specific factors. For systemic (non-CNS) malignancies, cognitive impairment has been identified in up to 75%, depending on cohort, which persists in up to 35% of patients in the years following initial treatment. The most common areas of impairment include memory and processing speed, and executive function. These adverse effects of cancer treatment have been reported after chemotherapy, hormone therapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. This review will summarize existing knowledge regarding the nature and pattern of cognitive changes, mechanisms and risk factors underlying these changes, and biomarkers to support identification of this adverse consequence of cancer therapies.

AbstractBackgroundAdult medulloblastoma (MB) is rare, and management guidelines are largely based on pediatric clinical trials and retrospective series. Limited data exist with respect to clinical characteristics, prognostic factors, and outcomes based on first-line treatments.MethodsTwo hundred adults with MB seen at a single institution from January 1978 to April 2017 were identified and followed for a median of 8.4 y (7.1, 10.3).ResultsPatient’s median age at diagnosis was 29 y (18, 63). One hundred eleven (55.5%) were standard-risk, 59 (29.5%) were high-risk, and 30 (15.0%) were indeterminate. Most received post-operative radiation (RT) (184 [92.0%]), and 105 (52.5%) received first-line chemotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 y (7.2, 12.2) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.6 y (4.9, 11.2). High-risk patients had inferior OS (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.5 [1.5, 4.2], P = .0006) and PFS (HR = 2.3 [1.3, 3.9], P = .002) compared to standard-risk patients. Age, sex, and metastatic disease were not associated with survival. After adjusting for risk status, those who received RT plus adjuvant chemotherapy had superior PFS compared to RT plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy [HR = 0.46 (0.22, 0.95), P = .0357]. Within a subgroup for whom detailed clinical data were available, those who received RT plus adjuvant chemotherapy had improved PFS compared to RT only [HR = 0.24 (0.074–0.76), P = .016]. The substitution of cisplatin for carboplatin and the elimination of vincristine did not negatively affect outcomes.ConclusionThis is the largest single-institution retrospective study of adult MB to our knowledge and identifies standard-risk status, first-line RT and adjuvant chemotherapy as factors associated with improved outcomes.

Abstract Background This secondary image analysis of a randomized trial of proton radiotherapy (PT) versus photon intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compares tumor progression based on clinical radiological assessment versus Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO). Methods Eligible patients were enrolled in the randomized trial and had MR imaging at baseline and follow-up beyond 12 weeks from completion of radiotherapy. “Clinical progression” was based on a clinical radiology report of progression and/or change in treatment for progression. Results Of 90 enrolled patients, 66 were evaluable. Median clinical progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.8 (range: 9.4–14.7) months; 10.8 months IMRT versus 11.2 months PT (P = .14). Median RANO-PFS was 8.2 (range: 6.9, 12): 8.9 months IMRT versus 6.6 months PT (P = .24). RANO-PFS was significantly shorter than clinical PFS overall (P = .001) and for both the IMRT (P = .01) and PT (P = .04) groups. There were 31 (46.3%) discrepant cases of which 17 had RANO progression more than a month prior to clinical progression, and 14 had progression by RANO but not clinical criteria. Conclusions Based on this secondary analysis of a trial of PT versus IMRT for glioblastoma, while no difference in PFS was noted relative to treatment technique, RANO criteria identified progression more often and earlier than clinical assessment. This highlights the disconnect between measures of tumor response in clinical trials versus clinical practice. With growing efforts to utilize real-world data and personalized treatment with timely adaptation, there is a growing need to improve the consistency of determining tumor progression within clinical trials and clinical practice.

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.