Zadeh, Gelareh

AbstractBackgroundWith increasing molecular analyses of meningiomas, there is a need to harmonize language used to capture clinical data across centers to ensure that molecular alterations are appropriately linked to clinical variables of interest. Here the International Consortium on Meningiomas presents a set of core and supplemental meningioma-specific common data elements (CDEs) to facilitate comparative and pooled analyses.MethodsThe generation of CDEs followed the 4-phase process similar to other National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) CDE projects: discovery, internal validation, external validation, and distribution.ResultsThe CDEs were organized into patient- and tumor-level modules. In total, 17 core CDEs (10 patient level and 7 tumor level) as well as 14 supplemental CDEs (7 patient level and 7 tumor level) were defined and described. These CDEs are now made publicly available for dissemination and adoption.ConclusionsCDEs provide a framework for discussion in the neuro-oncology community that will facilitate data-sharing for collaborative research projects and aid in developing a common language for comparative and pooled analyses. The meningioma-specific CDEs presented here are intended to be dynamic parameters that evolve with time and The Consortium welcomes international feedback for further refinement and implementation of these CDEs.

Abstract Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for many hard-to-treat cancers but has yet to produce significant improvement in outcomes for patients with glioblastoma. This reflects the multiple and unique mechanisms of immune evasion and escape in this highly heterogeneous tumor. Glioblastoma engenders profound local and systemic immunosuppression and is remarkably effective at inducing T-cell dysfunction, posing a challenge to any immunotherapy-based approach. To overcome these mechanisms, multiple disparate modes of immune-oriented therapy will be required. However, designing trials that can evaluate these combinatorial approaches requires careful consideration. In this review, we explore the immunotherapy resistance mechanisms that have been encountered to date and how combinatorial approaches may address these. We also describe the unique aspects of trial design in both preclinical and clinical settings and consider endpoints and markers of response best suited for an intervention involving multiple agents.

Abstract On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

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 BACKGROUND With increasing studies reporting on the molecular profiling of meningiomas, there is a need to harmonize language used to capture clinical data across centers to ensure that molecular alterations are appropriately linked to clinical variables of interest. Here the International Consortium on Meningiomas presents a final set of core and supplemental meningioma-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs) to facilitate comparative and pooled analyses. METHODS The generation of CDEs followed the four-phase process similar to other National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) CDE projects: development/discovery based on data from published and ongoing meningioma trials, internal validation, external validation including presentation of our data form at the Society for Neuro-Oncology previously, and distribution. RESULTS We developed a set of CDEs organized into patient- and tumor-level modules. In total, the Consortium identified 16 core CDEs (9 patient-level and 7-tumour-level) e.g. age at index surgery, diagnosis of neurofibromatosis, prior chemotherapy or radiation, tumor location, extent of resection, recurrence, etc. An additional 15 supplemental CDEs were defined and described (8 patient-level and 7 tumour-level) e.g. race, cause of death, multiple tumors, tumor size, Simpson grade, second intervention, etc. These CDES are now made publicly available for dissemination and adoption. We also present a narrative review and analysis of recent and ongoing meningioma trials. CONCLUSIONS These CDEs provide a framework for discussion in the neuro-oncology community that will facilitating data sharing for collaborative research projects and aid in developing a common language for comparative and pooled analyses. The CDEs are intended to be dynamic parameters that evolve with time and The Consortium welcomes international feedback for further refinement and implementation of these CDEs.

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.

Abstract Glioblastomas are the most common form of malignant primary brain tumor and an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years there have been important advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, but this has not translated into significantly improved outcomes for patients. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of isocitrate dehydrogenase wildtype (IDHwt) glioblastomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as targeted molecular therapies, agents targeting DNA damage response and metabolism, immunotherapies, and viral therapies will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

Abstract With increasing epidemiological and biological studies on meningiomas, standardized clinical data capture will be necessary to interpret results across studies and to translate them to clinical practice. To meet this need for consistent clinical data capture, the International Consortium on Meningioma, has developed a set of common data elements (CDEs), to be used across clinical and biological research. Building from terminology used in clinical practice and ongoing studies, we used a consensus-of-experts approach to arrive at a set of standardized and vetted data elements. Areas of focus include patient characteristics, patient history, radiological and intra-operative description, histological diagnosis and molecular testing, non-surgical interventions, and surveillance. These data elements are implemented in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) forms. With REDCap implementation, components of the CDE set can be selected and instituted in a local REDCap instance for efficient study start-up. The scope of the current CDE set focuses on surgically treated meningioma. However, modular forms provide flexibility and to allow the scope to be expanded to include non-surgically treated meningioma. Dissemination plans are underway to introduce the CDEs to neuro-oncology researchers and clinicians through publication and presentations, where feedback will be solicited. Adoption of CDEs for research will improve consistency and interpretability across studies, expediting research in this frequently occurring tumor.