Bent, Martin J. van den

PURPOSE The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time, some limitations of these criteria were identified, and challenges emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. METHODS Informed by data from studies evaluating the different criteria, updates to the RANO criteria are proposed (RANO 2.0). RESULTS We recommend a standard set of criteria for both high- and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the postradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than the postsurgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for comparison with subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks after radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, are required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for the evaluation of treatment for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (two-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type glioblastoma, the nonenhancing disease will no longer be evaluated except when assessing response to antiangiogenic agents. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant nonenhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and nonenhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION The revised RANO 2.0 criteria refine response assessment in gliomas.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, the RANO working group developed updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). RESULTS Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION These criteria represent a work in progress that will hopefully improve the assessment of response in glioma trials. Future updates will incorporate novel developments, advanced imaging techniques, and endpoints as they become validated.

Abstract The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve the reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, we propose updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment.

2017 Background: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade and low-grade glioma (HGG and LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Several limitations of the original RANO criteria have been reported. Methods: To address limitations of the original RANO criteria, a large cohort of patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma were evaluated comparing RANO-HGG with modified RANO (mRANO) and immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria to inform the following proposed updates (RANO 2.0). Results: Based on the 2021 WHO classification of glioma, we recommend a single common set of criteria for all gliomas regardless of WHO grade and IDH mutational status. These criteria will be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the post-radiotherapy MRI, usually obtained approximately 4 weeks after completion of radiotherapy, rather than the post-surgical MRI as proposed in original RANO criteria, will be used as the baseline for comparison of subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the first 3 months following radiotherapy, confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI (in 4-8 weeks) will be required for determining radiographic progression of disease (PD) if the patient is clinically stable. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors since these scans do not appear to improve reliability in determining progression. For agents with a high likelihood of producing pseudoprogression such as viral therapies and some other immunotherapies, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement will remain the 2-dimensional maximum cross-sectional area of tumor as the simplest method, but where resources are available, volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type tumors with contrast enhancement, non-enhancing tumor will no longer be evaluated with the possible exception of patients receiving antiangiogenic therapies. However, in tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, both the contrast enhancing and non-enhancing components will be evaluated as target lesions. Conclusions: We hope that these and other proposed changes by the RANO working group will improve response assessment in glioma clinical trials and help the development of more effective therapy for patients.

Abstract Durable objective response rate (ORR) remains a meaningful endpoint in recurrent cancer; however, the target ORR for single-arm recurrent glioblastoma trials has not been based on historic information or tied to patient outcomes. The current study reviewed 68 treatment arms comprising 4793 patients in past trials in recurrent glioblastoma in order to judiciously define target ORRs for use in recurrent glioblastoma trials. ORR was estimated at 6.1% [95% CI 4.23; 8.76%] for cytotoxic chemothera + pies (ORR = 7.59% for lomustine, 7.57% for temozolomide, 0.64% for irinotecan, and 5.32% for other agents), 3.37% for biologic agents, 7.97% for (select) immunotherapies, and 26.8% for anti-angiogenic agents. ORRs were significantly correlated with median overall survival (mOS) across chemotherapy (R2= 0.4078, P < .0001), biologics (R2= 0.4003, P = .0003), and immunotherapy trials (R2= 0.8994, P < .0001), but not anti-angiogenic agents (R2= 0, P = .8937). Pooling data from chemotherapy, biologics, and immunotherapy trials, a meta-analysis indicated a strong correlation between ORR and mOS (R2= 0.3900, P < .0001; mOS [weeks] = 1.4xORR + 24.8). Assuming an ineffective cytotoxic (control) therapy has ORR = 7.6%, the average ORR for lomustine and temozolomide trials, a sample size of ≥40 patients with target ORR>25% is needed to demonstrate statistical significance compared to control with a high level of confidence (P < .01) and adequate power (>80%). Given this historic data and potential biases in patient selection, we recommend that well-controlled, single-arm phase II studies in recurrent glioblastoma should have a target ORR >25% (which translates to a median OS of approximately 15 months) and a sample size of ≥40 patients, in order to convincingly demonstrate antitumor activity. Crucially, this response needs to have sufficient durability, which was not addressed in the current study.

Abstract Durable overall response rate (ORR) remains a meaningful endpoint in recurrent GBM; however, the target ORR for single arm recurrent GBM trials has not been based on historic information or tied to patient outcomes. The current study reviewed past trials in recurrent GBM in order to judiciously define target ORRs for use in recurrent GBM trials. After reviewing 69 treatment arms comprising 4,971 patients, ORR was 6.1%[95% CI 4.23; 8.76%] for cytotoxic chemotherapies (ORR=7.59% for CCNU, 7.57% for TMZ, 0.64% for CPT-11, and 5.32% for other agents), 3.37% for biologic agents, 7.97% for immunotherapies (select trials), and 26.8% for anti-angiogenic agents. ORRs were significantly correlated with median overall survival (mOS) across chemotherapy (R2=0.4078, P< 0.0001), biologics (R2=0.4003, P=0.0003), and immunotherapy trials (R2=0.8994, P< 0.0001), but not anti-angiogenic agents (R2=0, P=0.8937). Pooling data from chemotherapy, biologics, and immunotherapy trials, a meta-analysis indicated a strong correlation between ORR and mOS (R2=0.3164, P< 0.0001; mOS[weeks]=0.6xORR+28.9), suggesting an ORR >20% results in an mOS of > 40.9 weeks, which is double the survival estimate of a treatment with ORR=0% and ≥ 2 months longer than treatments with ORR=5%. Assuming an ineffective therapy (control) has ORR=5%, a trial of 32 patients with a target ORR=20% leads to the 95% confidence interval higher than the control group. We conclude that single arm phase II studies in recurrent GBM with ≥ 32 patients should have a target ORR ≥ 20%. This was associated with a median OS of approximately 1 year. Importantly, durability of response should also be considered and was not assessed in the current meta-analysis.

Abstract Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant gliomas are the most common adult, malignant primary brain tumors diagnosed in patients younger than 50, constituting an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, sparking multiple efforts to improve their diagnosis and treatment. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), the current diagnosis and management of IDH-mutant gliomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies, such as targeted molecular therapies and immunotherapies, will be reviewed. Current challenges and future directions for research will be discussed.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the basis of the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOTs) are chemotherapy-sensitive brain tumors. We report the final very long-term survival results from European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 phase III trials initiated in 1990s, which both studied radiotherapy with/without neo/adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) for newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. The median follow-up duration in both was 18-19 years. For European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951, median, 14-year, and probable 20-year overall survival rates without versus with PCV were 2.6 years, 13.4%, and 10.1% versus 3.5 years, 25.1%, and 16.8% (N = 368 overall; hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = .033), with 1p19q codeletion 9.3 years, 26.2%, and 13.6% versus 14.2 years, 51.0%, and 37.1% (n = 80; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03; P = .063), respectively. For Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402, analogous results were 4.8 years, 16.5%, and 11.2% versus 4.8 years, 29.1%, and 24.6% (N = 289 overall; HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03; P = .08), with codeletion 7.3 years, 25.0%, and 14.9% versus 13.2 years, 46.1%, and 37% (n = 125; HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = .02), respectively. With that, the studies show similar long-term survival even without tumor recurrence in a significant proportion of patients after first-line treatment with radiotherapy/PCV.

PURPOSE American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has developed a guideline on appropriate radiation therapy for brain metastases. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS “Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline” 2 was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the ASTRO guideline, published May 6, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses “Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.” 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Within the guideline, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is recommended for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and up to four intact brain metastases, and conditionally recommended for patients with up to 10 intact brain metastases. The guideline provides detailed dosing and fractionation recommendations on the basis of the size of the metastases. For patients with resected brain metastases, radiation therapy (SRS or whole-brain radiation therapy [WBRT]) is recommended to improve intracranial disease control; if there are limited additional brain metastases, SRS is recommended over WBRT. For patients with favorable prognosis and brain metastases ineligible for surgery and/or SRS, WBRT is recommended with hippocampal avoidance where possible and the addition of memantine is recommended. For patients with brain metastases, limiting the single-fraction V 12Gy to brain tissue to ≤ 10 cm 3 is conditionally recommended. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Abstract Purpose: In a post hoc analysis of the CATNON trial (NCT00626990), we explored whether adding temozolomide to radiotherapy improves outcome in patients with IDH1/2 wildtype (wt) anaplastic astrocytomas with molecular features of glioblastoma [redesignated as glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase–wildtype (IDH-wt) in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of central nervous system tumors]. Patients and Methods: From the randomized phase III CATNON study examining the addition of adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide to radiotherapy in anaplastic astrocytomas, we selected a subgroup of IDH1/2wt and H3F3Awt tumors with presence of TERT promoter mutations and/or EGFR amplifications and/or combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10. Molecular abnormalities including MGMT promoter methylation status were determined by next-generation sequencing, DNA methylation profiling, and SNaPshot analysis. Results: Of the 751 patients entered in the CATNON study, 670 had fully molecularly characterized tumors. A total of 159 of these tumors met the WHO 2021 molecular criteria for glioblastoma, IDH-wt. Of these patients, 47 received radiotherapy only and 112 received a combination of radiotherapy and temozolomide. There was no added effect of temozolomide on either overall survival [HR, 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–1.71] or progression-free survival (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61–1.24). MGMT promoter methylation was prognostic for overall survival, but was not predictive for outcome to temozolomide treatment either with respect to overall survival or progression-free survival. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with glioblastoma, IDH-wt temozolomide treatment did not add benefit beyond that observed from radiotherapy, regardless of MGMT promoter status. These findings require a new well-powered prospective clinical study to explore the efficacy of temozolomide treatment in this patient population.