Coven, Scott L.

Abstract Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumors (DLGNT) are rare central nervous system tumors. Our understanding of the clinical course, prognostic factors, and optimal treatment strategies remains limited. Histologic, molecular, and clinical data were collected and analyzed for 25 patients with DLGNT reviewed at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The median age at diagnosis was 6 years (11 months-20 years). Nineteen (72%) patients were male. The disease was localized at diagnosis in 12 (48.0%) patients, with most tumors localized in the spinal cord. BRAF fusion was present in 22 (95.6%) of 23 patients who had material for testing. Of 18 patients who had tissue for DNA methylation profiling, 3 (16.7%) matched to DLGNT MC-1, 3 (16.7%) to DLGNT MC-2, and 12 (66.7%) did not match to a DLGNT subclass. Median follow-up was 63 months. Twenty-four (96.0%) patients received adjuvant therapy after initial diagnosis or at progression. Thirty-five cytotoxic chemotherapy and 24 single-agent targeted therapy regimens were used in 22 and 13 patients, respectively. With targeted therapy, 3 (12%) patients had partial responses. Eleven (44.0%) received radiotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a patient’s first chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or radiotherapy regimen was 44 months (1-77), 11 months (4-39), and 16.5 months (9-23), respectively. The 5-year PFS was 18.7%±9.2, while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 82.4%±9.2. The 5-year OS was lower in patients older than 9 years at diagnosis (60.0%±21.9 vs 91.7%±8.0, p = 0.02). Ki67 >4% was associated with worse PFS (0%±0 vs 24.6%±11.9 at 5 years, p = 0.03). Initial disease dissemination (localized vs. disseminated) and 1q gain status do not influence PFS or OS. PFS for DLGNT remains poor across all treatment modalities, including targeted therapies, despite the high frequency of BRAF fusions. Due to its rarity, establishing optimal therapeutic strategies for DLGNT requires additional treatment and outcome data and prospective multi-institutional trials.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Pediatric Central Nervous System Cancers provide multidisciplinary diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment recommendations for diffuse high-grade gliomas and medulloblastomas in children and adolescents. This article summarizes the studies and panel discussion that serve as the rationale for comprehensive care recommendations included in the NCCN Guidelines for Pediatric Central Nervous System Cancers.

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.

Abstract To assess the impact of the pandemic on the field, we performed an international web-based survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents from April 24 through May 17. Of 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were in the US, and 314 (55%) were international. 80.4% were affiliated with academic institutions. 94% respondents reported changes in clinical practice; 95% reported conversion to telemedicine for at least some appointments. However, almost 10% practitioners felt the need to see patients in person specifically because of billing concerns and perceived institutional pressure. Over 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. 67% practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial: 53% suspended phase II and 62% suspended phase III trial enrollment. 71% clinicians feared for their or their families’ safety, specifically because of their clinical duties. 20% percent said they did not have enough PPE to work safely; about the same percentage were unhappy with their institutions’ response to the pandemic. 43% believed the pandemic would negatively affect their academic career, and 52% fellowship program directors were worried about losing funding for their training programs. While 69% respondents reported increased stress, 44% were offered no psychosocial support. 37% had their salary reduced. 36% researchers had to temporarily close their laboratories. In contrast, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient and family satisfaction, quality of communication, and use of technology to deliver care and interactions with other practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has altered standard treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options for patients. In some cases, clinicians felt institutional pressure to continue conducting billable in-person visits when telemedicine visits would have sufficed. A lack of institutional support created anxiety among clinicians and researchers. We make specific recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward.