Hervey‐Jumper, Shawn L.

Abstract BACKGROUND The prognostic importance of maximal resection of contrast enhancing and non-contrast enhancing disease has been established. Nonetheless, glioblastomas exist within the framework of complex neural circuitry serving cognition, movement, and behavior consequential leading to neurological impairments. The prognostic importance of neurological impairments on survival remains poorly understood. METHODS This is a retrospective, single cohort study from UCSF including 316 eligible patients diagnosed over 20 years with 9.6 years of follow-up. All patients underwent surgical resection for newly diagnosed glioblastoma for whom survival, molecular, preoperative and postoperative MRI images, and clinical data were available. All patients had chemoradiation treated IDH-wild-type glioblastoma with available preoperative and 1-month post-surgical resection neurological outcomes. We employed survival models and recursive partitioning (RPA) to investigate multivariate relationships of overall survival (OS). RESULTS Preoperative neurological impairments were present in 75.6% (n= 239) and new post resection impairments were identified in 37.3% (n=117). Univariate analysis confirmed that new postoperative cognitive impairment [HR 7.91, 95% CI 2.47-25.33] and hemiplegia [HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.83-13.67] (not hemiparesis) impact OS. Risk stratified grouping by RPA demonstrated that gross total resection of contrast enhancing tumor in patients with no new postoperative neurological impairments confers the longest OS (median OS 27.1 months 95%CI 21.5-33.7). Patients with any residual tumor volume after surgery but no new neurological deficits experience a similar survival to younger patients (under 65) with 1 or more new postoperative neurological deficits (median OS 16.6 months 95%CI 15.2-19.2). Shortest OS is identified in patients with any volume of residual tumor plus 1 or more new postoperative neurological deficits and age over 65 (median OS 11.4 months, 95%CI 9.3-13.5). CONCLUSIONS This study confirms that new postoperative neurological impairments impact overall survival in patients with chemoradiation treated IDH-wild-type glioblastoma.

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 BACKGROUND A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. METHODS We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. RESULTS We described selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. We focused on patient and community factors, disparities, physician and provider factors, clinical trial factors, and site and organizational factors CONCLUSIONS We will implement strategies with the intent to double accrual to neuro-oncology trials over the next 5 years.

Abstract Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.

2024 Background: A major impediment to improving neuro-oncology outcomes is poor clinical trial accrual. Methods: We convened a multi-stakeholder group including Society for Neuro-Oncology, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners to determine how we can improve trial accrual. Results: We describe selected factors contributing to poor trial accrual and possible solutions. Conclusions: We will implement strategies with the intent to double trial accrual over the next 5 years. [Table: see text]