Blakeley, Jaishri O

Abstract Current assessments of brain permeability rely predominantly on drug delivery to contrast-enhancing tumor regions. However, substantial portions of central nervous system (CNS) tumors reside within non-enhancing brain (NEB), where drug concentrations frequently remain subtherapeutic. This collaborative Adult Brain Tumor Consortium and Food and Drug Administration workshop aimed to identify criteria for defining NEB permeability to accomplish 2 critical objectives: (1) allocate clinical trial resources toward agents achieving therapeutic NEB concentrations and (2) minimize systemic toxicity when CNS benefit is improbable. The workshop systematically evaluated permeability assessment modalities, including drug physicochemical properties, in vitro blood-brain barrier models, and penetration into cerebrospinal fluid and normal rodent brain. Methodological approaches to determine requisite NEB drug concentrations and approaches to measuring NEB pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were examined. This culminated in developing the Non-Enhancing Brain Permeability Index (NEBPI), which assigns therapeutic agents to 3 categories: sufficiently permeable, insufficiently permeable, or impermeable. The NEBPI provides a standardized framework to assist investigators and regulatory agencies to evaluate NEB penetration before human efficacy studies are initiated for agents that require direct tumor contact. Assessing NEB drug penetration is critical to improving outcomes in CNS tumors and reducing the incidence of brain metastases in systemic malignancies.

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 Background Despite advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of meningioma progression and innovations in systemic and local treatments, recurrent meningiomas remain a substantial therapeutic challenge. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a historical baseline, contemporary analysis, and propose a “rate of probable interest” to inform future clinical trial design and development on behalf of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology meningioma group. Methods PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ASCOpubs databases were screened for clinical trials evaluating the activity of systemic therapies for adults with recurrent meningiomas. The pooled progression-free survival at 6-months and 1-year (PFS-6 and PFS-1 year) values were calculated using the random effects technique with I2 indices. Results The pooled PFS-6 and PFS-1 year rates for recurrent WHO grade 1 meningiomas were 43.6% (95% CI: 22.7-67.0%, I2 = 80%) and 21.7% (95% CI: 6.2-53.9%, I2 = 76%), and for grades 2-3 meningiomas, the PFS-6 was 38.0% (95% CI: 28.3-48.8%, I2 = 68%). In the targeted therapy group, PFS-6 and PFS-1 year rates stood at 62.0% (I2 = 58%) and 49.0% (I2 = 63%) for grade 1, while for grades 2-3 tumors, the PFS-6 rates with targeted therapy and immunotherapy were 42.1% (I² = 60%) and 46.0% (I² = 0%), respectively. The benchmarks were set at 67% and 54% for PFS-6 and PFS-1 year for grade 1 tumors, and PFS-6 of 49% for grades 2-3 tumors. Conclusions Several studies have reported outcomes in patients with recurrent meningiomas testing a variety of agents with modest, but variable and progressively increasing activity. In this context, we recommend new benchmarks for future trials to define efficacy of future investigational therapies.

Abstract Plexiform Neurofibromas (PN) are a common manifestation of the genetic disorder neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). These benign nerve sheath tumors often cause significant morbidity, with treatment options limited historically to surgery. There have been tremendous advances over the past two decades in our understanding of PN, and the recent regulatory approvals of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib are reshaping the landscape for PN management. At present, there is no agreed upon PN definition, diagnostic evaluation, surveillance strategy, or clear indications for when to initiate treatment and selection of treatment modality. In this review, we address these questions via consensus recommendations from a panel of multidisciplinary NF1 experts.