Bederson, Joshua B.

Abstract Background IDH-mutant astrocytomas are classified as WHO grade 4 in the presence of conventional high-grade histologic features and/or homozygous CDKN2A/B deletion in the 5th edition of the WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumour guidelines. However, work over the past decade has indicated a number of other molecular alterations that warrant consideration as potential prognostic markers. Methods We used univariate Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to evaluate the prognostic effects of homozygous CDKN2A/B deletion, CDK4 amplification, CCND2 amplification, PDGFRA amplification/mutation, PIK3R1 mutation, PIK3CA mutation, MYCN amplification, EGFR amplification/mutation, TERT promoter mutation, and grade 4 histologic features in two independent cohorts of WHO grade 2-4 IDH-mutant astrocytoma (n = 840 and n = 367). Results The presence of CDK4 amplification, CCND2 amplification, PDGFRA alteration, PIK3R1 mutation, MYCN amplification, and EGFR alteration were each associated with reduced overall survival compared to WHO grade 2/3 astrocytomas without these molecular features. 17.7% (148/837) of otherwise grade 2/3 astrocytomas had one or more of these molecular criteria, with resulting intermediate clinical outcome in terms of overall survival (median survival of 67.3-82.0 months) compared to grade 2/3 astrocytomas without these molecular features (median survival of 135.0-140.7 months) and grade 4 astrocytomas (median survival of 35.3-45.0 months). Conclusions The presence of CDK4, CCND2, PDGFRA, PIK3R1, MYCN, and EGFR alterations result in an intermediate patient survival in IDH-mutant astrocytoma. Adding these molecular alterations should be considered in future diagnostic classification systems to improve stratification of high-risk patients.

Background and Purpose— To address the increasing need to counsel patients about treatment indications for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA), we endeavored to develop a consensus on assessment of UIAs among a group of specialists from diverse fields involved in research and treatment of UIAs. Methods— After composition of the research group, a Delphi consensus was initiated to identify and rate all features, which may be relevant to assess UIAs and their treatment by using ranking scales and analysis of inter-rater agreement (IRA) for each factor. IRA was categorized as very high, high, moderate, or low. Results— Ultimately, 39 specialists from 4 specialties agreed (high or very high IRAs) on the following key factors for or against UIA treatment decisions: (1) patient age, life expectancy, and comorbid diseases; (2) previous subarachnoid hemorrhage from a different aneurysm, family history for UIA or subarachnoid hemorrhage, nicotine use; (3) UIA size, location, and lobulation; (4) UIA growth or de novo formation on serial imaging; (5) clinical symptoms (cranial nerve deficit, mass effect, and thromboembolic events from UIAs); and (6) risk factors for UIA treatment (patient age and life expectancy, UIA size, and estimated risk of treatment). However, IRAs for features rated with low relevance were also generally low, which underlined the existing controversy about the natural history of UIAs. Conclusions— Our results highlight that neurovascular specialists currently consider many features as important when evaluating UIAs but also highlight that the appreciation of natural history of UIAs remains uncertain, even within a group of highly informed individuals.