Citations

Abstract Background Multi-modality therapy has improved survival for many patients with brain metastases. However, neurocognitive sequelae remain a challenge. While advances in radiotherapy have reduced toxicity, the potential interaction with targeted therapy and immunotherapy and the consequent impact on neurocognitive outcomes remain poorly defined. We appraised the current evidence on neurocognitive outcomes in the era of modern combined-modality therapy. Methods This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and included clinical trials reporting neurocognitive outcomes in patients with brain metastases receiving radiotherapy ± concurrent systemic therapies. Studies published through December 31, 2024 were identified through PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science using pre-defined MeSH term-based search strings. Results 39 studies from 1997-2024 involving 6,617 patients met inclusion criteria (n = 27 whole-brain radiotherapy [WBRT]; n = 12 radiosurgery), including six studies evaluating combined-modality therapy in 1,161 patients. Baseline cognitive evaluation was performed inconsistently, but neurocognitive deficits were frequently observed prior to treatment. Most randomized trials reported improved cognitive outcomes and quality of life with advanced radiotherapy techniques (e.g., hippocampal avoidance, radiosurgery) vs WBRT. Among 20 randomized trials comparing radiotherapy with or without a concurrent investigational systemic therapy, only four included neurocognitive assessments. There was no evidence of cognitive sequelae with combined-modality therapy, though evaluable trials were limited due to inconsistent reporting of neurocognitive functioning. Conclusion As survival improves in patients with brain metastases, preserved cognition is an important outcome measure. The lack of neurocognitive endpoints in pivotal brain metastasis trials represents a critical evidence gap. The interaction between radiotherapy and novel systemic therapies, and their combined effects on neurocognition, remain unknown. To address this, we recommend 1) integrating sensitive, pragmatic, and tailored neurocognitive assessments into oncology trials to quantify additive toxicity, 2) early and systematically incorporating neuropsychology into care pathways, 3) expanding radiation dose-sparing and radioprotective strategies, and 4) evaluating the utility of cognitive rehabilitation programs.

PURPOSE GBM AGILE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03970447 ) is a phase II/III Bayesian adaptive platform registration trial testing multiple arms against a common control; the primary end point is overall survival (OS). Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, showed OS benefit in recurrent (RD) glioblastoma in the phase II REGOMA trial and entered GBM AGILE as the first investigational arm. METHODS Patient subtypes included in the regorafenib arm of GBM AGILE were newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and RD glioblastoma. Prospective defined sets of subtypes, or arm signatures, were NDU, RD, and all (NDU + RD). As the first investigational arm in GBM AGILE, regorafenib was equally randomized to the control arm. Treatment in the control arm is temozolomide + radiotherapy (in newly diagnosed) or lomustine (in RD). Efficacy was assessed by OS hazard ratio (HR), arm/control, and demonstrated when the Bayesian probability of benefit (HR <1.00) was ≥98%. Analysis was performed monthly for limited efficacy, which occurs when the Bayesian predictive power is <25% for all signatures, and determines stopping enrollment. Follow-up continued for 12 months after accrual stopped. RESULTS When the predictive power was <25% in all predefined signatures for regorafenib, accrual stopped for limited efficacy. The final analysis did not demonstrate OS improvement in the regorafenib arm in RD nor NDU glioblastoma. Median HRs were 1.05 (NDU), 1.07 (RD), and 1.07 (all) with final probabilities of benefit (HR <1.00) of 0.421 (NDU), 0.312 (RD), and 0.296 (all). Regorafenib was associated with increased toxicity relative to control. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE did not show superiority of regorafenib over control in RD (lomustine) or NDU (temozolomide + radiotherapy) glioblastoma, yet caused increased toxicities. Regorafenib has been removed from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for RD.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive primary brain tumor in adults, with a dismal 5-year survival rate of ~6.5%. Vasogenic cerebral edema is a severe complication that occurs in the majority of GBM patients, leading to a significant increase in intracranial pressure, neurological deficits, and increased mortality rates. GBM-associated edema is almost exclusively managed by the corticosteroid dexamethasone, the use of which is associated with immunosuppression and interference with radiation therapy. While there is considerable research on edema formation, little is known about how edema resolution occurs in GBM, particularly in response to dexamethasone or other anti-edema therapies. This gap in understanding highlights the need for new approaches to treat edema effectively. The water channel aquaporin-4 (AQP4), a key player in the brain’s water homeostasis, is upregulated in GBM compared to the normal brain. To investigate the role of AQP4 in GBM-associated edema, we used the RCAS/tv-a system to generate de novo GBM with different driver mutations in Aqp4 knockout (KO) and wild-type (WT) mice. Our results indicated that Aqp4 KO tumor-bearing mice had shortened survival and increased edema content. Additionally, Aqp4 loss decreased astrocyte coverage specifically in the tumor core but not the tumor periphery. Our single cell RNA-seq data suggested that Aqp4 loss led to an astrocytic shift towards a less reactive, progenitor-like state, while also decreasing the myeloid and CD8+ T cell population in the tumor microenvironment. Interestingly, tumor-bearing mice treated with anti-VEGFA antibody, which has anti-edema properties, showed increased expression of Aqp4 and reduced vessel leakage. This suggests that AQP4 plays a critical role in mediating the effects of anti-VEGFA therapy. Overall, this study highlights the important role of AQP4 in the resolution of edema, while also revealing its additional effects on astrocyte activation and the immune microenvironment in GBM.

Importance Molecular techniques, including next-generation sequencing, genomic copy number profiling, fusion transcript detection, and genomic DNA methylation arrays, are now indispensable tools for the workup of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Yet there remains a great deal of heterogeneity in using such biomarker testing across institutions and hospital systems. This is in large part because there is a persistent reluctance among third-party payers to cover molecular testing. The objective of this Review is to describe why comprehensive molecular biomarker testing is now required for the accurate diagnosis and grading and prognostication of CNS tumors and, in so doing, to justify more widespread use by clinicians and coverage by third-party payers. Observations The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system for CNS tumors incorporates specific molecular signatures into the essential diagnostic criteria for most tumor entities. Many CNS tumor types cannot be reliably diagnosed according to current WHO guidelines without molecular testing. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also incorporates molecular testing into their guidelines for CNS tumors. Both sets of guidelines are maximally effective if they are implemented routinely for all patients with CNS tumors. Moreover, the cost of these tests is less than 5% of the overall average cost of caring for patients with CNS tumors and consistently improves management. This includes more accurate diagnosis and prognostication, clinical trial eligibility, and prediction of response to specific treatments. Each major group of CNS tumors in the WHO classification is evaluated and how molecular diagnostics enhances patient care is described. Conclusions and Relevance Routine advanced multidimensional molecular profiling is now required to provide optimal standard of care for patients with CNS tumors.

Abstract GBM AGILE(NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies against a common control. Paxalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, is the 3rd arm in the trial to conclude evaluation. METHODS Paxalisib was open to patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and recurrent (RD) glioblastoma, with three possible signatures: NDU, RD, and All(NDU+RD). Arm enrollment occurred Dec2020 through May2022. Control patients were enrolled from study initiation (July2019) and were treated with temozolomide(NDU) or lomustine(RD). GBM AGILE investigational arms have 1 or 2 stages, with adaptive randomization in stage 1 and fixed randomization if arms continue to stage 2. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio(HR) of Arm/Control. Efficacy goal is final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR&lt;1.00 in combined Stages. An Arm continues to Stage 2 if Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8. An Arm stops accruing in Stage 1 if it reaches maximal sample size(N) or does not meet a minimum efficacy threshold (PP&lt;0.25 for all signatures when N&gt;50). Clinical cut-off is 12 months after accrual stops. The maximum N for paxalisib was approximately 150(Stage 1) and 50(Stage 2). RESULTS After paxalisib reached &gt;150 patients in Stage 1, accrual stopped [Paxalisib/control N 54/75(NDU), 100/188(RD)]. Neither PP thresholds for moving to Stage 2 nor stopping for minimum efficacy were met. Following an unplanned public disclosure that the arm did not continue to stage 2, clinical cut-off for final analysis (planned May2023) was updated to public disclosure date (August2022). At final analysis mean HRs were 0.89(NDU), 1.25(RD), 1.05(All), probabilities of HR&lt;1.00 of 0.72(NDU), 0.076(RD), 0.398(All). Model estimated median OS paxalisib/control (months) were 14.77/13.84(NDU) and 8.58/10.06(RD). CONCLUSION Paxalisib did not show survival benefit over cumulative control in final primary analysis; additional secondary analyses are being considered. GBM AGILE continues to rapidly and efficiently assess therapies in ND and RD glioblastoma.

Abstract Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumor. They are slow growing and often incidentally found tumors that arise from the arachnoid villi. As they grow, they have a greater likelihood of becoming symptomatic with seizures being one of the most clinically significant symptoms. Seizures are more likely to present as a symptom of larger meningiomas and meningiomas that compress cortical areas particularly those in non-skull base locations. These seizures are often managed medically, utilizing the same anti-seizure medications that are used to treat other causes of epilepsy. We discuss common anti-seizure medications used including valproate, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, phenytoin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate and their common adverse effects. The goal of pharmacotherapy for seizure control is to maximize seizure control while minimizing the adverse effects of the medication. The decision to provide medical management is dependent on individual seizure history and plans for surgical treatment. Patients who did not require seizure prophylaxis before surgery are commonly prescribed seizure prophylaxis postoperatively. Symptomatic meningiomas not controlled by medical management alone are commonly evaluated for surgical resection. The efficacy of surgical resection in providing seizure freedom is dependent on several features of the tumor including tumor size, the extent of the peritumoral edema, the number of tumors, sinus infiltration and the degree of resection.

The NCCN Guidelines for Central Nervous System (CNS) Cancers focus on management of the following adult CNS cancers: glioma (WHO grade 1, WHO grade 2–3 oligodendroglioma [1p19q codeleted, IDH- mutant], WHO grade 2–4 IDH- mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 4 glioblastoma), intracranial and spinal ependymomas, medulloblastoma, limited and extensive brain metastases, leptomeningeal metastases, non–AIDS-related primary CNS lymphomas, metastatic spine tumors, meningiomas, and primary spinal cord tumors. The information contained in the algorithms and principles of management sections in the NCCN Guidelines for CNS Cancers are designed to help clinicians navigate through the complex management of patients with CNS tumors. Several important principles guide surgical management and treatment with radiotherapy and systemic therapy for adults with brain tumors. The NCCN CNS Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding molecular profiling of gliomas.

Abstract Neuro-oncology fellowship trainees have varied academic backgrounds before subspecialty certification with most completing neurology residency ( &gt; 90%) and a minority coming from medical oncology and neurosurgery programs. Given the variability in background and training of fellows, concerns about competency, particularly in prescribing chemotherapy and understanding associated toxicities, need to be addressed. Providing a metric to track and assess competency can enhance trainees’ skills and bolster confidence during a neuro-oncology fellowship. In an IRB-exempt quality improvement project, we developed a competency test that was primarily case-based and guided knowledge of treatment indications, dosing, and management of associated toxicities. All questions were created based on NCCN guidelines and linked to a quality metric from ASCO-QOPI. Question content included 1. Prescribing, 2. Prescription review 3. Planning management, 4. Communicating information, 5. Drug dose calculation skills, 6. Adverse drug reactions, 7. Drug monitoring, and 8. Data interpretation. At the start of the fellowship, trainees took a pre-assessment test with a validated Likert scale for self-efficacy/confidence. These tests were scored, and directed elements were delivered via didactics to fellows by practicing neuro-oncologist and clinical pharmacist. The same assessments were performed at 6 and 12 months. All tests were scored and compared to the level of self-efficacy/confidence. Four fellows were included in this project across two institutions. Higher level of proficiency correlated with a higher level of self-reported confidence at the pre-assessment time point. Assessment at six months revealed an improvement in test scores and associated confidence and this trend continued at fellowship completion. This metric is the first known tool to evaluate chemotherapy competency and confidence in neuro-oncology fellows. Performance and self-efficacy/confidence are positively linked. This chemotherapy competency metric can be introduced to all neuro-oncology fellowship programs and used for national certification.

Abstract Neurocognitive function (NCF) deficits are common in patients with brain metastases, occurring in up to 90% of cases. NCF deficits may be caused by tumor-related factors and/or treatment for the metastasis, including surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. In recent years, strategies to prevent negative impact of treatments and ameliorate cognitive deficits for patients with brain tumors have gained momentum. In this review, we report on research that has established the efficacy of preventative and rehabilitative therapies for NCF deficits in patients with brain metastases. Surgical strategies include the use of laser interstitial thermal therapy and intraoperative mapping. Radiotherapy approaches include focal treatments such as stereotactic radiosurgery and tailored approaches such as hippocampal avoidant whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Pharmacologic options include use of the neuroprotectant memantine to reduce cognitive decline induced by WBRT and incorporation of medications traditionally used for attention and memory problems. Integration of neuropsychology into the care of patients with brain metastases helps characterize cognitive patterns, educate patients and families regarding their management, and guide rehabilitative therapies. These and other strategies will become even more important for long-term survivors of brain metastases as treatment options improve.