Vogelbaum, Michael A

PURPOSE Age ≥40 years is regarded as a high-risk feature and an indication for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for patients with lower-grade glioma in clinical practice guidelines. It is unclear whether age remains a relevant prognostic factor for contemporary definitions of lower-grade gliomas in the molecular era. METHODS The Prospective Gliomas Research (PROGRES) database contains individual patient-level data from 11 prospective clinical trials or observational registries of histologically defined lower-grade 2-3 oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma. We determined the association of age (18-39 years v ≥40 years) with progression-free survival (PFS) stratified by isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 ( IDH1/2 ) status, using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. We validated our findings in a separate multi-institutional retrospective cohort (Retrospective Glioma Research [REGRES] database). RESULTS We identified 1,619 and 1,292 eligible patients in the PROGRES and REGRES cohorts, respectively. IDH -wildtype tumors were more common in patients 40 years and older (38% v 5%, odds ratio: 11.3 [95% CI, 6.5 to 19.7]). Age was associated with PFS in IDH -wildtype (5-year PFS for ≥40 v 18-39 years: 6% v 24%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.21 to 2.50]) but not in IDH -mutant glioma (60% v 59%, HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.05], P interaction < .001). In IDH -wildtype tumors, older age predicted aggressive molecular features, including TERT promoter mutation (65% v 28%), EGFR amplification (41% v 15%), and chromosome +7/–10 alteration (57% v 25%). In a pooled analysis of four clinical trials, age was not predictive of a benefit from chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for IDH -mutant glioma. CONCLUSION In the absence of additional clinical or molecular risk factors, age alone should not be considered an indication for administration or deferral of adjuvant treatment. Practice guidelines should be revised to reflect contemporary prognostic factors in the molecular era.

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.

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 .