Preusser, Matthias

Abstract Oncogenic BRAF alterations occur in a subset of diffuse gliomas across WHO grades and are increasingly identified through modern molecular diagnostics. In addition to standard glioma therapies, targeted treatments are available for patients with BRAF-altered glioma supported by variable evidence spanning randomized trials, single-arm studies, and real-world evidence. This joint consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) synthesizes current knowledge on the diagnosis and management of BRAF-altered gliomas across age groups, tumor grades, and lines of therapy. Particular emphasis is placed on expert consensus in clinical scenarios where high-quality trial evidence remains limited. The review addresses rationale testing for BRAF alterations, selection, and monitoring of targeted therapies, management of treatment-related toxicities, approaches to resistance, and priorities for future research. It aims to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians while highlighting gaps to inform prospective studies.

Abstract Glioblastoma is the most common type of malignant primary brain tumor and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In 2021, the World Health Organization updated the classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors to restrict glioblastomas to isocitrate dehydrogenase-wildtype (IDHwt) tumors, improving understanding of the prognosis and optimal therapy for these tumors. This revision also enables more homogeneous populations of patients to be enrolled in clinical trials, facilitating the evaluation of novel therapies. In this updated consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of patients with glioblastoma is discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as immunotherapies, viral therapies, targeted molecular therapies, theranostics, and antibody–drug conjugates will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

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 Meningiomas are the most common intracranial neoplasms in adults. While most meningiomas are cured by resection, further treatment by radiotherapy may be needed, particularly in WHO grades 2 and 3 tumors which have an increased risk of recurrence, even after conventional therapies. Still, there is an urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies after the exhaustion of local treatment approaches. Radionuclide therapies combine the specificity of tumor-specific antibodies or ligands with the cytotoxic activity of radioactive emitters. Alongside this, integrated molecular imaging allows for a noninvasive assessment of predictive biomarkers as treatment targets. Whereas the concept of “theranostics” has initially evolved in extracranial tumors such as thyroid diseases, neuroendocrine tumors, and prostate cancer, data from retrospective case series and early phase trials underscore the potential of this strategy in meningioma. This review aims to explore the available evidence of radionuclide treatments and ongoing clinical trial initiatives in meningioma. Moreover, we discuss optimal clinical trial design and future perspectives in the field, including compound- and host-specific determinants of the efficacy of “theranostic” treatment approaches.

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.

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 Background Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for meningioma, the most common primary intracranial tumor, but improvements in meningioma risk stratification are needed and current indications for postoperative radiotherapy are controversial. Recent studies have proposed prognostic meningioma classification systems using DNA methylation profiling, copy number variants, DNA sequencing, RNA sequencing, histology, or integrated models based on multiple combined features. Targeted gene expression profiling has generated robust biomarkers integrating multiple molecular features for other cancers, but is understudied for meningiomas. Methods Targeted gene expression profiling was performed on 173 meningiomas and an optimized gene expression biomarker (34 genes) and risk score (0 to 1) was developed to predict clinical outcomes. Clinical and analytical validation was performed on independent meningiomas from 12 institutions across 3 continents (N = 1856), including 103 meningiomas from a prospective clinical trial. Gene expression biomarker performance was compared to 9 other classification systems. Results The gene expression biomarker improved discrimination of postoperative meningioma outcomes compared to all other classification systems tested in the independent clinical validation cohort for local recurrence (5-year area under the curve [AUC] 0.81) and overall survival (5-year AUC 0.80). The increase in area under the curve compared to the current standard of care, World Health Organization 2021 grade, was 0.11 for local recurrence (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07–0.17, P < 0.001). The gene expression biomarker identified meningiomas benefiting from postoperative radiotherapy (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.37–0.78, P = 0.0001) and re-classified up to 52.0% meningiomas compared to conventional clinical criteria, suggesting postoperative management could be refined for 29.8% of patients. Conclusions A targeted gene expression biomarker improves discrimination of meningioma outcomes compared to recent classification systems and predicts postoperative radiotherapy responses.

2026 Background: Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis. Methods: Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the inter-observer pairwise agreement. Results: Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions. Conclusions: This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with “blocking options” may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.

Abstract Background Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis. Methods Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the interobserver pairwise agreement. Results Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons, and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions. Conclusion This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with “blocking options” may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.