Wesseling, Pieter

Abstract Background In patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, rapid early progression (REP) refers to tumor regrowth between surgery and postoperative chemoradiotherapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis appraised previously published data on REP to better characterize and understand it. Methods Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database from inception to October 21, 2021. Studies describing the incidence of REP—tumor growth between the postoperative MRI scan and pre-radiotherapy MRI scan in newly diagnosed glioblastoma were included. The primary outcome was REP incidence. Results From 1590 search results, 9 studies were included with 716 patients. The median age was 56.9 years (IQR 54.0–58.8 y). There was a male predominance with a median male-to-female ratio of 1.4 (IQR 1.1–1.5). The median number of days between MRI scans was 34 days (IQR 18–45 days). The mean incidence rate of REP was 45.9% (range 19.3%–72.0%) and significantly lower in studies employing functional imaging to define REP (P < .001). REP/non-REP groups were comparable with respect to age (P = .99), gender (P = .33) and time between scans (P = .81). REP was associated with shortened overall survival (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30–2.43, P < .001), shortened progression-free survival (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30–2.43, P < .001), subtotal resection (OR 6.96, 95% CI 4.51–10.73, P < .001) and IDH wild-type versus mutant tumors (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02–0.38, P = .03). MGMT promoter methylation was not associated with REP (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.72–2.28, P = .39). Conclusions REP occurs in almost half of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and has a strongly negative prognostic effect. Future studies should investigate its biology and effective treatment strategies.

Abstract Purpose: In a post hoc analysis of the CATNON trial (NCT00626990), we explored whether adding temozolomide to radiotherapy improves outcome in patients with IDH1/2 wildtype (wt) anaplastic astrocytomas with molecular features of glioblastoma [redesignated as glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase–wildtype (IDH-wt) in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of central nervous system tumors]. Patients and Methods: From the randomized phase III CATNON study examining the addition of adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide to radiotherapy in anaplastic astrocytomas, we selected a subgroup of IDH1/2wt and H3F3Awt tumors with presence of TERT promoter mutations and/or EGFR amplifications and/or combined gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10. Molecular abnormalities including MGMT promoter methylation status were determined by next-generation sequencing, DNA methylation profiling, and SNaPshot analysis. Results: Of the 751 patients entered in the CATNON study, 670 had fully molecularly characterized tumors. A total of 159 of these tumors met the WHO 2021 molecular criteria for glioblastoma, IDH-wt. Of these patients, 47 received radiotherapy only and 112 received a combination of radiotherapy and temozolomide. There was no added effect of temozolomide on either overall survival [HR, 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–1.71] or progression-free survival (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61–1.24). MGMT promoter methylation was prognostic for overall survival, but was not predictive for outcome to temozolomide treatment either with respect to overall survival or progression-free survival. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with glioblastoma, IDH-wt temozolomide treatment did not add benefit beyond that observed from radiotherapy, regardless of MGMT promoter status. These findings require a new well-powered prospective clinical study to explore the efficacy of temozolomide treatment in this patient population.

Abstract Background Survival in patients with IDH1/2-mutant (mt) anaplastic astrocytomas is highly variable. We have used the prospective phase 3 CATNON trial to identify molecular factors related to outcome in IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients. Methods The CATNON trial randomized 751 adult patients with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-codeleted anaplastic glioma to 59.4 Gy radiotherapy +/− concurrent and/or adjuvant temozolomide. The presence of necrosis and/or microvascular proliferation was scored at central pathology review. Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip arrays were used for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis and the determination of copy number variations (CNV). Two DNA methylation-based tumor classifiers were used for risk stratification. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed using 1 of the 2 glioma-tailored NGS panels. The primary endpoint was overall survival measured from the date of randomization. Results Full analysis (genome-wide DNA methylation and NGS) was successfully performed on 654 tumors. Of these, 432 tumors were IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytomas. Both epigenetic classifiers identified poor prognosis patients that partially overlapped. A predictive prognostic Cox proportional hazard model identified that independent prognostic factors for IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients included; age, mini-mental state examination score, treatment with concurrent and/or adjuvant temozolomide, the epigenetic classifiers, PDGFRA amplification, CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion, PI3K mutations, and total CNV load. Independent recursive partitioning analysis highlights the importance of these factors for patient prognostication. Conclusion Both clinical and molecular factors identify IDH1/2mt anaplastic astrocytoma patients with worse outcome. These results will further refine the current WHO criteria for glioma classification.

Abstract cIMPACT‐NOW (the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy) was established to evaluate and make practical recommendations on recent advances in the field of CNS tumor classification, particularly in light of the rapid progress in molecular insights into these neoplasms. For Round 2 of its deliberations, cIMPACT‐NOW Working Committee 3 was reconstituted and convened in Utrecht, The Netherlands, for a meeting designed to review putative new CNS tumor types in advance of any future World Health Organization meeting on CNS tumor classification. In preparatory activities for the meeting and at the actual meeting, a list of possible entities was assembled and each type and subtype debated. Working Committee 3 recommended that a substantial number of newly recognized types and subtypes should be considered for inclusion in future CNS tumor classifications. In addition, the group endorsed a number of principles—relating to classification categories, approaches to classification, nomenclature, and grading—that the group hopes will also inform the future classification of CNS neoplasms.

Abstract Major discoveries in the biology of nervous system tumors have raised the question of how non‐histological data such as molecular information can be incorporated into the next W orld H ealth O rganization ( WHO ) classification of central nervous system tumors. To address this question, a meeting of neuropathologists with expertise in molecular diagnosis was held in H aarlem, the N etherlands, under the sponsorship of the I nternational S ociety of N europathology ( ISN ). Prior to the meeting, participants solicited input from clinical colleagues in diverse neuro‐oncological specialties. The present “white paper” catalogs the recommendations of the meeting, at which a consensus was reached that incorporation of molecular information into the next WHO classification should follow a set of provided “ ISN ‐ H aarlem” guidelines. Salient recommendations include that (i) diagnostic entities should be defined as narrowly as possible to optimize interobserver reproducibility, clinicopathological predictions and therapeutic planning; (ii) diagnoses should be “layered” with histologic classification, WHO grade and molecular information listed below an “integrated diagnosis”; (iii) determinations should be made for each tumor entity as to whether molecular information is required, suggested or not needed for its definition; (iv) some pediatric entities should be separated from their adult counterparts; (v) input for guiding decisions regarding tumor classification should be solicited from experts in complementary disciplines of neuro‐oncology; and (iv) entity‐specific molecular testing and reporting formats should be followed in diagnostic reports. It is hoped that these guidelines will facilitate the forthcoming update of the fourth edition of the WHO classification of central nervous system tumors.