Citations

Abstract Background Although there are data describing the onset of neurocognitive toxicity following radiation for patients with brain metastases, less is known about the potential for functional cognitive recovery (CR). This study sought to evaluate CR following neurocognitive function failure (NCF) in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and hippocampal avoidance (HA)-WBRT. Methods A pooled analysis of 3 (NCCTG N107C/CEC.3, NCCTG N0574, and NRG CC001) clinical trials was performed. Patients with trial-defined NCF and longitudinal cognitive testing were included. The primary endpoint was time to CR, defined as patients no longer exhibiting a 1 or more standard deviation decline from baseline on any cognitive test. Results A total of 288 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 12.2 months. The cumulative incidence of CR was 38% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 32.5% to 43.9%) at 6 months after NCF. Incidence of CR was significantly improved with post-op SRS vs WBRT (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.43 to 5.03, P = .002) and with SRS vs SRS+WBRT (HR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.16 to 4.79, P = .008). On multivariable analysis, SRS was highly prognostic of CR compared with WBRT (HR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.70 to 3.45, P < .0001). Meta-analysis demonstrated that conformal RT techniques (SRS or HA-WBRT) conferred a significantly higher rate of CR compared with WBRT (pooled HR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.49 to 3.02, P < .001); 68% of patients had long-term sustained CR. Conclusions A sizeable proportion of patients who experience NCF following brain radiation eventually attain full and sustained CR, thereby highlighting that neurocognitive decline may not be permanent. The use of conformal radiation techniques results in greater rates of neurocognitive recovery.

Abstract Background Methylation class pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (mcPXA) comprises tumors with the DNA methylation signature of classical PXA but with a wider histologic spectrum, including overlap with glioblastoma (GBM). Methods To clarify the histologic and molecular scope of mcPXA and characterize its clinical behavior, a cohort of 469 tumor samples from 458 patients matching to mcPXA by the DKFZ classifier (v12.6 score ≥0.85) was interrogated. Results Patient median age was 23 years (range 1-73 years) with a female predominance (259 female/199 male). CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion was observed in 406 of 469 (87%) samples. In samples tested for BRAF p.V600E mutations (n = 279), 240 (86%) harbored the mutation. A chr7+/chr10− pattern was observed in 103 of 469 (22%) samples. Among samples tested for TERT promoter mutations (n = 143), 32 (22%) harbored the mutation. Progression-free and overall survival of patients with mcPXA were comparable to patients with methylation class IDH-mutant astrocytoma, low grade, but a GBM-like subset (ie, cases with a pre-methylation working diagnosis of GBM) showed shorter survival. Histologic features of high grade, including palisading necrosis and microvascular proliferation, were prognostic in mcPXA. Compared to patients with BRAF p.V600E-altered GBM, patients with mcPXA were younger and had a lower frequency of TERT promoter mutations. Conclusion Tumors in mcPXA share molecular characteristics with histologically defined PXA, and high-grade histologic features can help predict their clinical behavior. The use of an epigenetic classification of PXA reveals that this group of tumors is more common than previously appreciated and warrants in-depth study to identify efficacious therapeutic options.

Abstract Background Instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes (PRO) should generate high-quality evidence. Reliable PRO evidence is essential to policymakers, in conjunction with outcomes such as survival and radiological response, to understand the net clinical benefit of antitumor treatments. This study aimed to establish the content validity of 215 identified PRO measures used in patients with brain tumors. Methods A survey (n = 148 items) was developed reflecting aspects of the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Patients with brain tumors, their proxies, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) were asked to rate each survey item on relevance. An item was considered a relevant issue if ≥25% of the patients or proxies or ≥50% of the HCPs considered that item to be an issue. Next, all items in the identified PRO measures were linked to ICF and relevant items in the survey, and the percentage of content coverage was calculated. Results In total, 114 patients, 71 proxies, and 65 HCPs from different countries completed the survey. Fifty-six of 148 (37.8%) items in the survey were considered relevant. The most important aspects mentioned by both patients and proxies were difficulty concentrating, difficulty remembering, multitasking, and handling stress. Depending on the definition, between 35% and 49% of PRO measures were considered to have sufficient content validity (≥80% coverage). Conclusion The content validity was insufficient in more than half of the identified PRO measures, particularly multidimensional measures. Future research should investigate whether different approaches to PRO assessment better meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Abstract Background Patients’ self-report of their symptoms can provide important data for the evaluation of treatment benefit and tolerability of oncology drugs. Contemporary treatment approaches, including immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapies, have unique toxicities based on their novel mechanisms of action. This scoping review aimed to summarize evidence from existing reviews and clinical practice guidelines to examine the type and prevalence of toxicities including symptomatic adverse events (sympAEs) for adult cancer patients to inform clinical care and therapeutic trials. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed using predefined eligibility criteria. Thirty-one literature reviews and 3 clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria and were selected for review and data abstraction. Results Findings from this scoping review demonstrated several leading sympAEs that were reported across immunotherapy and targeted therapy drugs, including fatigue, diarrhea, and rash. In addition to these more prevalent sympAEs, there were some less frequently reported class-specific sympAEs, which had potential for significant harm or disability to the patient if not properly identified and treated. Many studies reported toxicities as AEs or syndromes solely using data reported by clinicians without additional self-report from patients. Conclusion We identified several core sympAEs experienced by patients participating in oncology trials using immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents, which has implications for future trial design and drug labeling. Future cancer trials should assess patient-reported sympAEs based on the identified drug mechanism to inform the tolerability of these newer agents and enhance patient safety during trial participation and clinical care.

Abstract Background EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L is a commonly used measure of health-related quality of life in clinical trials given the use of its index score as a measure of health utilities. It is unclear whether EQ-5D-5L is sensitive to changes in neurocognitive function and progression that occur following brain radiation. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L in reflecting these changes. Methods A secondary analysis of NRG Oncology CC001 was performed. Mean EQ-5D-5L index and visual analog scale (VAS) score changes from baseline between groups of patients stratified by neurocognitive function and intracranial progression status were assessed. MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for brain tumor (MDASI-BT) symptom and interference items were also analyzed between groups. Results EQ-5D-5L mean index and VAS score changes between patients who had cognitive failure and those who had preserved cognition showed no statistically significant differences at any timepoint. In contrast, VAS changes at 4 months (1.61 vs -5.13, P = .05) and 6 months (8.17 vs −0.14, P = .04) were significantly improved in the patients who survived without intracranial progression. MDASI-BT cognitive factor scores were improved in the cohort of patients with preserved neurocognitive function at 2 months (1.68 vs 2.08, P = .05) and 4 months (1.35 vs 1.83, P = .04). MDASI-BT symptom interference was significantly associated with intracranial progression at 4 months, but not with neurocognitive status. Conclusion EQ-5D-5L index and VAS scores were not sensitive to neurocognitive changes that patients experienced, but VAS scores were sensitive to progression. This study challenges the routine use of EQ-5D as a quality of life metric in brain metastases clinical trials that are focused on preventing neurocognitive dysfunction. Trial Registration NCT# 02360215.

Abstract Background Hippocampal avoidant whole brain radiotherapy (HA-WBRT) is the standard of care for patients needing WBRT for brain metastases. This study, using existing data from NRG Oncology CC001 including baseline tumor characteristics and patient-reported MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT) scores, sought to identify subgroups of patients that demonstrate differential neuroprotective treatment response to HA-WBRT. Methods An exploratory analysis of NRG CC001, a phase 3 trial in which 518 patients were randomly assigned to WBRT plus memantine or HA-WBRT plus memantine, was performed. Rates of neurocognitive function failure (NCFF) were estimated between subgroups and stratified by arm. Covariate and subgroup interaction with differential treatment response were calculated. Results The benefit of HA-WBRT on decreasing NCFF was seen in patients living ≥ 4 months (HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58–0.97, P = .03), whereas patients living < 4 months derived no significant neurocognitive benefit. A significant association between baseline MDASI-BT cognitive factor and treatment response (interaction P = .03) was identified. Patients with lower MDASI-BT scores (less patient-reported cognitive impairment) derived significantly greater benefit (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48–0.85, P = .002) compared to those with highest MDASI-BT scores (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.76–2.04, P = .39). Tumor histology also had a significant interaction (P = .01) with treatment response. Primary lung histology patients derived cognitive failure risk reduction (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43–0.77, P = .0007) from HA-WBRT, in contrast to nonlung primary histology patients (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.78–1.50, P = .48). Conclusions Differential neuroprotective response to HA-WBRT was identified in this analysis. Patients surviving ≥ 4 months derived benefit from HA-WBRT. There is evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect for patients with less severe patient-reported cognitive impairment at baseline and those with primary lung histology.

Abstract BACKGROUND Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers and clinicians led us to conduct a survey identifying opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. METHODS Summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates (European Association of Neuro-Oncology, Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology, Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career success metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. RESULTS The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40-49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology community. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

Abstract Background Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers, and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. Methods In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic, and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. Results The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40–49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. Conclusions The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

Abstract Background This secondary image analysis of a randomized trial of proton radiotherapy (PT) versus photon intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compares tumor progression based on clinical radiological assessment versus Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO). Methods Eligible patients were enrolled in the randomized trial and had MR imaging at baseline and follow-up beyond 12 weeks from completion of radiotherapy. “Clinical progression” was based on a clinical radiology report of progression and/or change in treatment for progression. Results Of 90 enrolled patients, 66 were evaluable. Median clinical progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.8 (range: 9.4–14.7) months; 10.8 months IMRT versus 11.2 months PT (P = .14). Median RANO-PFS was 8.2 (range: 6.9, 12): 8.9 months IMRT versus 6.6 months PT (P = .24). RANO-PFS was significantly shorter than clinical PFS overall (P = .001) and for both the IMRT (P = .01) and PT (P = .04) groups. There were 31 (46.3%) discrepant cases of which 17 had RANO progression more than a month prior to clinical progression, and 14 had progression by RANO but not clinical criteria. Conclusions Based on this secondary analysis of a trial of PT versus IMRT for glioblastoma, while no difference in PFS was noted relative to treatment technique, RANO criteria identified progression more often and earlier than clinical assessment. This highlights the disconnect between measures of tumor response in clinical trials versus clinical practice. With growing efforts to utilize real-world data and personalized treatment with timely adaptation, there is a growing need to improve the consistency of determining tumor progression within clinical trials and clinical practice.

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.