Citations

AbstractBuilding on an initiative to enhance clinical trial participation involving the Society for Neuro-Oncology, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners, we evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria and trial conduct on neuro-oncology clinical trial participation. Clinical trials often carry forward eligibility criteria from prior studies that may be overly restrictive and unnecessary and needlessly limit patient accrual. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be evaluated based on the goals and design of the study and whether they impact patient safety and/or treatment efficacy. In addition, we evaluate clinical trial conduct as a barrier to accrual and discuss strategies to minimize such barriers for neuro-oncology trials.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. Two methods that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data: Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM) were applied to gain insight in the net clinical benefit. METHODS The net clinical benefit in one RCT (EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone) was calculated as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (42.3 vs. 30.6 months). The percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 9.7 months up till 5.5 months, given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

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 BACKGROUND The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to inform glioma patients and facilitate shared decision making. We applied two methods (i.e. Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM)) that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data into one outcome, to gain insight in the net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy. In addition, we assessed if both methods result in similar interpretations. MATERIAL AND METHODS We calculated the net clinical benefit in one randomized controlled trial, EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone, as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. Next, the combined effect size can be determined by weighing the emphasis put on survival or HRQoL (e.g. survival more important). JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (difference of 10.8 months). In contrast, the percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. The QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 10.8 months to 6.8 months when adjusted for the HRQoL scales/items, when given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

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]

2057 Background: The optimal role of chemotherapy and radiation (RT) in adult low-grade glioma (LGG, WHO grade 1 & 2) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis of the literature on overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with LGG. Methods: Pubmed was queried with MeSH terms. All comparative studies of adults with newly diagnosed, supratentorial LGG were included. Comparisons of interest were OS and PFS at 2, 5, and 10 years in chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy and early RT versus delayed or no RT. Data were extracted from studies and synthesized with a random effects model. Quality of evidence was determined by American Academy of Neurology criteria and further analysis was performed, separating high quality (class I and II) from low quality (class III and IV) evidence. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were determined from the risk difference. Results: 1531 articles were screened; 18 studies were included. Chemotherapy was not associated with a significant survival advantage compared to control. However, an analysis of high quality data revealed a survival advantage at 10 years associated with chemotherapy compared to control with NNT 5 (relative risk death chemo vs control 0.69 [0.56-0.86] p = 0.0006). Furthermore, NNT to prevent one progression with chemotherapy at 5 and 10 years was 6 and 3, respectively. Early RT was not associated with an OS advantage compared to control. However, early RT had progression benefit at all time points, with NNT of 10, 6, and 5 at 2, 5, and 10 years. Conclusions: Further study will be needed to confirm the optimal role of chemotherapy and RT. Caution must be used in interpretation as much of the literature consists of low-quality studies. [Table: see text]

2025 Background: Low-grade gliomas (LGG) account for 17-22% of all primary brain tumors. Optimal surgical management consists of optimum safe resection with the goal of complete resection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the association of extent of resection with likelihood of survival, expressing our results in numbers needed to treat (NNT). Methods: A systematic review and study-level meta-analysis to determine the association of resection with overall survival and progression-free survival in newly diagnosed, supratentorial LGG in adults was performed by querying PubMed. Data were extracted to compare gross total resection (GTR) to subtotal resection (STR) and STR to biopsy (Bx) to determine relative risks (RR) of death and progression at 2, 5, and 10 years. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. NNT were calculated from significant comparisons and rounded up to the nearest whole number. Quality of evidence was determined by American Academy of Neurology criteria. Results: The systematic review resulted in 283 potential studies. Ultimately 29 studies were included in at least one comparison. There were no high quality (class I and II) or prospective studies discovered in the review. Comparing GTR to STR, RR with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of death at 2, 5, and 10 years, and NNT to avoid one death at 2, 5, and 10 years (GTR vs. STR) were 0.29 [0.17-0.52, p < 0.0001, NNT 17], 0.39 [0.29-0.51, p < 0.00001, NNT 6], and 0.50 [0.35-0.70, p < 0.0001 NNT 4]. RR and NNT for progression (GTR vs. STR) at 2, 5, and 10 years were 0.37 [0.24-0.57, p < 0.0001 NNT 7], 0.50 [0.39-0.64, p < 0.0001 NNT 4], and 0.67 [0.53-0.84, p = 0.0005 NNT 4]. Comparing STR to Bx, RR of death at 2, 5, and 10 years were 0.55 [0.34-0.88, p = 0.01 NNT 10], 0.9 [0.61-1.34], and 0.95 [0.73-1.23]. Conclusions: Increasing resection thresholds appear to be associated with improved overall and progression free survival, but the body of literature consists of low quality studies. Prospective studies are required to explore whether extent of resection matters or whether resectable tumors share a favorable biology associated with better outcome.

Abstract Background Optimum management of low-grade gliomas remains controversial, and widespread practice variation exists. This evidence-based meta-analysis evaluates the association of extent of resection, radiation, and chemotherapy with mortality and progression-free survival at 2, 5, and 10 years in patients with low-grade glioma. Methods A quantitative systematic review was performed. Inclusion criteria included controlled trials of newly diagnosed low-grade (World Health Organization Grades I and II) gliomas in adults. Eligible studies were identified, assigned a level of evidence for every endpoint considered, and analyzed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The relative risk of mortality and of progression at 2, 5, and 10 years was calculated for patients undergoing resection (gross total, subtotal, or biopsy), radiation, or chemotherapy. Results Gross total resection was significantly associated with decreased mortality and likelihood of progression at all time points compared to subtotal resection. Early radiation was not associated with decreased mortality; however, progression-free survival was better at 5 years compared to patients receiving delayed or no radiation. Chemotherapy was associated with decreased mortality at 5 and 10 years in the high-quality literature. Progression-free survival was better at 5 and 10 years compared to patients who did not receive chemotherapy. In patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 gene (IDH1) R132H mutations receiving chemotherapy, progression-free survival was better at 2 and 5 years than in patients with IDH1 wild-type gliomas. Conclusions Results from this review, the first to quantify differences in outcome associated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy in patients with low-grade gliomas, can be used to inform evidence-based management and future clinical trials.