Hess, Kenneth R.

Abstract Background Medulloblastoma in adults is rare and treatment decisions are largely driven from pediatric literature. We sought to characterize recurrent medulloblastoma in adults. Methods From a single-institution dataset of 200 adult patients diagnosed with medulloblastoma during 1978–2017, those with recurrence were analyzed for clinical features, treatment, and outcome. Results Of the 200 patients, 82 (41%) with median age of 29 years (18–59) had recurrence after a median follow-up time of 8.4 years (95% CI = 7.1, 10.3). Of these, 30 (37%) were standard-risk, 31 (38%) were high-risk, and 21 (26%) had unknown-risk diseases at the time of initial diagnosis. Forty-eight (58%) presented with recurrence outside the posterior fossa, of whom 35 (43%) had distant recurrence only. Median Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS from initial surgery were 33.5 and 62.4 months, respectively. Neither PFS nor OS from initial diagnosis differed between the standard-risk and high-risk groups in those who experience recurrence (P = .505 and .463, respectively). Median OS from first recurrence was 20.3 months, also with no difference between the standard-risk and high-risk groups (P = .518). Recurrences were treated with combinations of re-resection (20 patients; 25%), systemic chemotherapy (61 patients; 76%), radiation (29 patients; 36%), stem cell transplant (6 patients; 8%), and intrathecal chemotherapy (4 patients; 5%). Patients who received radiation at recurrence had better OS (32.9 months) than those who did not (19.2 months) (P = .034). Conclusions Recurrent medulloblastoma in adults has a poor prognosis irrespective of initial risk stratification. Recurrence commonly arises outside the posterior fossa years after initial diagnosis.

AbstractBackgroundAdult medulloblastoma (MB) is rare, and management guidelines are largely based on pediatric clinical trials and retrospective series. Limited data exist with respect to clinical characteristics, prognostic factors, and outcomes based on first-line treatments.MethodsTwo hundred adults with MB seen at a single institution from January 1978 to April 2017 were identified and followed for a median of 8.4 y (7.1, 10.3).ResultsPatient’s median age at diagnosis was 29 y (18, 63). One hundred eleven (55.5%) were standard-risk, 59 (29.5%) were high-risk, and 30 (15.0%) were indeterminate. Most received post-operative radiation (RT) (184 [92.0%]), and 105 (52.5%) received first-line chemotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 y (7.2, 12.2) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.6 y (4.9, 11.2). High-risk patients had inferior OS (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.5 [1.5, 4.2], P = .0006) and PFS (HR = 2.3 [1.3, 3.9], P = .002) compared to standard-risk patients. Age, sex, and metastatic disease were not associated with survival. After adjusting for risk status, those who received RT plus adjuvant chemotherapy had superior PFS compared to RT plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy [HR = 0.46 (0.22, 0.95), P = .0357]. Within a subgroup for whom detailed clinical data were available, those who received RT plus adjuvant chemotherapy had improved PFS compared to RT only [HR = 0.24 (0.074–0.76), P = .016]. The substitution of cisplatin for carboplatin and the elimination of vincristine did not negatively affect outcomes.ConclusionThis is the largest single-institution retrospective study of adult MB to our knowledge and identifies standard-risk status, first-line RT and adjuvant chemotherapy as factors associated with improved outcomes.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Prospective studies for adult medulloblastoma (MB) are scarce and management guidelines are largely derived from pediatric experience and retrospective data. However, adult MB is a distinct disease for which limited data exist regarding clinical characteristic, prognostic factors, outcome based on upfront treatment, or patterns of recurrence. METHODS 200 patients (≥18 years at diagnosis) were identified from 1978 to 2017. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Median age at diagnosis 29 (18–63); 111 (55.5%) standard-risk (SR), 59 (29.5%) high-risk (HR), 30 (15%) unknown. 188 (94%) and 97 (48.5%) underwent radiotherapy and upfront chemotherapy, respectively. Median PFS: 6.28 years (4.9–11.2); median OS: 8.8 (7.8–12.4) years. Median time to first recurrence: 8.2 (5.1-not reached); 5-year recurrence-free rate: 71% in SR and 45% in HR patients. Survival after first recurrence: 2 years (1.64–2.4). Documented recurrence and risk group were associated with survival (HR 30.4, p< 0.0001 and 2.33, p< 0.001), but metastatic status and local vs. distant recurrence were not. The effect of upfront chemotherapy on survival did not reach statistical significance in SR patients. The use of chemotherapy regimens with or without vincristine or containing cisplatin vs. carboplatin, did not alter the survival outcome. In a subgroup of 57 SR patients who were seen at initial diagnosis and for whom complete staging and treatment information were available 3 and 5-year PFS were 94% (88%, 100%) and 76% (66%, 86%); OS at 5 years, 94% (87%, 100%). CONCLUSION No statistically significant difference was noted in outcome of patients treated without vincristine or with carboplatin instead of cisplatin, suggesting attenuated upfront regimens could be considered to reduce toxicity. Adult MB patients recur late and have a poor post-recurrence survival, therefore long-term follow-up, development of molecular risk-adjusted upfront treatment, and optimization of rescue treatments are needed.

Integrating diverse types of prognostic information into accurate, individualized estimates of outcome in colorectal cancer is challenging. Significant heterogeneity in colorectal cancer prognostication tool quality exists. Methodology is incompletely or inadequately reported. Evaluations of the internal or external validity of the prognostic model are rarely performed. Prognostication tools are important devices for patient management, but tool reliability is compromised by poor quality. Guidance for future development of prognostication tools in colorectal cancer is needed.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2‐day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370–374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.