Working plan for the use of patient-reported outcome measures in adults with brain tumours: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) initiative

Reporting standards in randomized controlled trials involving neuro-oncology caregivers: A systematic review report from the RANO-Cares working group

Background

Family caregivers in neuro-oncology (eg, spouse, family member, friend to a patient) have high unmet support needs, yet intervention trials and effective support options are scarce. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO)-Cares working group investigated the methodological quality of neuro-oncology caregiver outcomes reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A systematic review was performed to evaluate to what extent RCTs assessing outcomes of caregivers of adult primary brain tumor patients adhere to minimum reporting standards. A 33-item checklist (23 applicable to secondary analysis reports) based on the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) criteria for patient-reported outcome reporting was used. Risk of bias was assessed per RCT.

Results

Fifteen publications from 11 unique RCTs included 676 neuro-oncology caregivers, with low overall risk of bias. Ten publications (66%) reported on caregiver outcomes as a primary aim, of which 8 (80%) satisfied ≥2/3 of the key methodological criteria. Of the 5 secondary analysis reports (33%), 2 (40%) met ≥2/3 of applicable key criteria. Criteria often not reported adequately included sample size calculations (reported adequately in n = 8, 53%), participant flow (n = 9, 60%) window for data collection (n = 1, 6%), and extent of (n = 10, 66%), reasons for (n = 9, 60%), and statistical approaches in dealing with (n = 4, 26%) missing data.

Conclusions

Whilst there are opportunities to enhance reporting standards, RCTs that include neuro-oncology caregiver outcomes generally adhere to high-quality reporting standards and have low risk of bias, indicating good potential to impact clinical practice.

Symptom experience and symptom distress in patients with malignant brain tumor treated with proton therapy: A five-year follow-up study

Background and purpose

Since patients with primary brain tumor are expected to become long-term survivors, the prevention of long-term treatment-induced side effects is particularly important. This study aimed to explore whether symptom experience and symptom distress change over five years in adults with primary brain tumors treated with proton therapy. An additional aim was to explore whether symptom experience and symptom distress correlate.

Materials and methods

The study had a longitudinal observational design. Adult (≥18 years) patients (n = 170) with primary brain tumors treated with proton therapy were followed over five years. Symptom experience and symptom distress were evaluated using the patient-reported Radiotherapy-Related Symptom Assessment Scale. Data from baseline, 1, 12, and 60 months were analyzed using non-parametric tests.

Results

Of the 170 patients, the levels of symptoms and symptom distress were low. Fatigue increased at 1 (p=0.005) and 12 months (p=0.025) and was the most frequent symptom from baseline to 60 months' follow-up. Cognitive impairment increased at 12 (p=0.027) and 60 months (p<0.001) and was the most distressing symptom at 60 months' follow-up. There were significant, moderate to strong, correlations at all time points between symptom experience and symptom distress of fatigue, insomnia, pain, dyspnea, cognitive impairment, worry, anxiety, nausea, sadness, constipation, and skin reactions.

Conclusion

Symptom experience and symptom distress changed in intensity over time with cognitive impairment as the most distressing symptom at 60 months. Future research should focus on identifying effective interventions aimed at alleviating these symptoms and reducing symptom distress for this vulnerable group of patients.

Patient-reported outcomes in Primary Spinal Intradural Tumours: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

Primary Spinal Intradural Tumours (PSITs) are rare pathologies that can significantly impact quality of life. This study aimed to review patient reported outcomes (PROs) in PSITs.

METHODS

A systematic search of Pubmed and Embase was performed to identify studies measuring PROs in adults with PSITs. PRO results were categorised as relating to Global, Physical, Social, or Mental health. Outcomes were summarised descriptively.

RESULTS

Following review of 2382 records, 11 studies were eligible for inclusion (737 patients). All studies assessed surgically treated patients. Schwannoma was the commonest pathology (n = 190). 7 studies measured PROs before and after surgery, the remainder assessed only post-operatively. For eight studies, PROs were obtained within 12 months of treatment. 21 PRO measurement tools were used across included studies, of which Euro-Qol-5D (n = 8) and the pain visual/numerical analogue scale (n = 5) were utilised most frequently. Although overall QoL is lower than healthy controls in PSITs, improvements following surgery were found in Extramedullary tumours (EMT) in overall physical, social, and mental health. Similar improvements were not significant across studies of Intramedullary tumours (IMT). Overall QoL and symptom burden was higher in IMT patients than in brain tumour patients. No studies evaluated the effect of chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Patients with PSITs suffer impaired PROs before and after surgery. This is particularly true for IMTs. PRO reporting in PSITs is hindered by a heterogeneity of reporting and varied measurement tools. This calls for the establishment of a standard set of PROs as well as the use of registries.

A Shifting Paradigm Toward Family-Centered Care in Neuro-Oncology: A Longitudinal Quasi-Experimental Mixed-Methods Feasibility Study

Family-centered intervention can help families facing illness-related issues. We investigated the feasibility of Family and Network Conversations (FNCs) in high-grade glioma patients and their families. Quasi-experimental feasibility study with longitudinal mixed-methods design. Patients and families were invited to three FNCs over 1 year. They completed questionnaires at four time points and expressed their perspectives on the intervention through telephone interviews. Nurses' perspectives were collected in a focus group. Twenty-one patients and 47 family members were included. On average, patients were 66 years old, mainly male, married, living with caregivers, with unifocal cancer. On average, caregivers were 47 years old, mainly female, being spouses or children of the patient. Quantitative and qualitative data did not always match and expanded each other. Nurse-delivered FNCs holistically addressed families' needs while strengthening family's dialogue and union. Nurses felt empowered, underling that advanced competencies were required. Nurse-delivered FNCs are feasible to provide family-centered care, but they should be tailored to each family's needs.

Clinical outcome assessment in patients with epilepsy: The value of health-related quality of life measurements

This narrative review provides an overview of the current knowledge on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), a relevant clinical outcome in patients with epilepsy. It shows that the most important factor determining HRQOL in this patient group is seizure frequency. In particular, seizure-freedom is associated with better HRQOL scores. Many other factors may impact perceived HRQOL aspects, but their interrelation is complex and requires further research. Novel analytical approaches, such as hierarchical cluster and symptom network analyses might shed further light on this, and may result in recommendations for interventions on the most 'central' factors influencing different aspects of HRQOL in patients with epilepsy. Next, an overview of the HRQOL tools and analytical methods currently used in epilepsy care, with a focus on clinical trials, is provided. The QOLIE-31 is the most frequently applied and best validated tool. Several other questionnaires focusing on specific aspects of HRQOL (e.g., mood, social impact) are less frequently used. We show some pitfalls that should be taken into account when designing study protocols including HRQOL endpoints. This includes standardized statistical analysis approaches and predefined reporting methods for HRQOL in epilepsy populations. It has been shown in other patient groups that the lack of such standardisation negatively impacts the quality and comparability of results. We conclude with a number of recommendations for future research.

Acetazolamide versus placebo for cerebral oedema requiring dexamethasone in recurrent and/or progressive high-grade glioma: phase II randomised placebo-controlled double-blind study

OBJECTIVES

Symptoms of raised intracranial pressure (ICP) in recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG) generally require corticosteroid treatment, often causing toxicity with variable effects on ICP symptoms. Acetazolamide reduces ICP when used in other clinical non-cancer settings. The aim of the study was to explore whether the addition of oral acetazolamide enables safe dexamethasone dose reduction in management of raised ICP in recurrent HGG.

METHODS

Participants had recurrent HGG with any of dexamethasone recommencement, dose increase or dependency; prior/current bevacizumab was an exclusion. Eligible participants were randomised 1:1 to acetazolamide or placebo for 8 weeks. Standardised protocols were used for dexamethasone dosing, with planned dose decrease from day 5 once ICP symptoms were stable. The primary endpoint was a composite of dexamethasone dose reduction and stable Karnofsky Performance Status Secondary endpoints included toxicity and feasibility.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (15 per group) were enrolled (mean age 58 years) from seven Australian sites. The mean baseline dexamethasone dose was 6.2 mg. Mean duration on study treatment was 38 days (placebo group) and 31 days (acetazolamide group) with nine participants (30%) completing all study treatments (six placebo, three acetazolamide). Study withdrawal was due to adverse events (n=6; one placebo, five acetazolamide) and disease progression (n=6 (three per arm)). Four participants (13%) (two per arm) were stable responders. Ten participants experienced a total of 13 serious adverse events (acetazolamide arm: five participants (33%), six events, two related).

CONCLUSIONS

The study closed early due to poor accrual and increasing availability of bevacizumab. The addition of acetazolamide did not facilitate dexamethasone reduction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615001072505.

Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.

METHODS

Oncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.

CONCLUSION

While COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Intracranial Meningioma: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Historically, largely due to the good prognosis for survival, there has been little attention paid to the possible impact of meningiomas and their treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, in the last decade there has been increasing evidence that patients with intracranial meningiomas suffer from long-term decreases in their HRQoL. Compared with controls and normative data, meningioma patients have worse HRQoL scores both before and after intervention and continuing long term (even after >4 years of follow-up). Overall, surgery results in improvements in many aspects of HRQoL. The limited available studies investigating the impact of radiotherapy suggest that this type of treatment decreases HRQoL scores, especially in the long term. There is however only limited evidence on additional determinants of HRQoL. Patients with anatomically complex skull base meningiomas and severe comorbidities, including epilepsy, report the lowest HRQoL scores. Other tumor and sociodemographic characteristics have shown weak associations with HRQoL. Furthermore, about one-third of caregivers of meningioma patients report caregiver burden, warranting interventions to improve caregiver HRQoL. As antitumor interventions may not improve HRQoL scores to be comparable to those of the general population, more attention should be paid to the development of integrative rehabilitation and supportive care programs for meningioma patients.

Quality of life outcomes in incidental and operated meningiomas (QUALMS): a cross-sectional cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have evaluated meningioma patients' longer-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following diagnosis and treatment, particularly in those with incidental, actively monitored tumours.

METHODS

A single-center, cross-sectional study was completed. Adult patients with surgically managed or actively monitored meningioma with more than five years of follow-up were included. The patient-reported outcome measures RAND SF-36, EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 were used to evaluate HRQoL. HRQoL scores were compared to normative population data. Outcome determinants were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

243 patient responses were analyzed, and the mean time from diagnosis was 9.8 years (range 5.0-40.3 years). Clinically relevant, statistically significant HRQoL impairments were identified across several SF-36 and QLQ-C30 domains. Increasing education level (β = 2.9, 95% CI 0.9 to 4.9), P = .004), employment (β = 7.7, 95% CI 2.2 to 13.1, P = .006) and absence of postoperative complications (β=-6.7, 95% CI -13.2 to (-)0.3, P = .041) were associated with a better QLQ-C30 summary score. Other tumour and treatment variables were not.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the longer-term disease burden of patients with meningioma nearly one decade after diagnosis or surgery. Patients with actively monitored meningioma have similar HRQoL to operated meningioma patients. Healthcare professionals should be mindful of HRQoL impairments and direct patients to sources of support as needed.

Relationship between RANO-PRO Working Group standardised priority constructs and disease progression among malignant glioma patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recognising the importance of clinical outcomes assessments (COAs), the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Patient Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) Working Group recommended inclusion of core symptoms and functions in clinical care or research for malignant glioma patients. This study evaluated the association of the recommended symptoms (pain, perceived cognition, seizures, aphasia, symptomatic adverse events) and functions (weakness, walking, work, usual activities) with disease progression in these patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with malignant glioma were included from the US National Cancer Institute Neuro-Oncology Branch Natural History Study (NOB-NHS) which follows primary central nervous system tumour patients aged 18 years and older throughout their disease trajectory. The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT), EQ-5D-3L, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and Neurologic Function scores (NFS) were evaluated in relation to disease progression by chi-square tests, independent- and paired-samples t-tests, adjusted for multiple comparisons at first assessment and over time to a second assessment. Radiographic disease progression was determined on the interpretation of the imaging study by a radiologist and neuro-oncologist using standard criteria as part of clinical trial participation or routine standard of care. The priority constructs were evaluated to provide initial evidence of their relevance, relationship to disease status over time, and sensitivity to change in a diverse group of patients with malignant glioma.

FINDINGS

Seven hundred and sixty-five patients had enrolled into the NOB-NHS between September 1, 2016 and January 31, 2020. Three hundred and thirty-six patients had a diagnosis of a malignant glioma (anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligodendroglioma, glioblastoma, and gliosarcoma) and were included in the current study. The sample was 64% male (n = 215), 36% female (n = 121), median age of 52 years (IQR = 18.75), 82% White (n = 276), and 65% had tumour recurrence (n = 219). One hundred and fifty-four (46%) had radiographic disease progression. Difficulty remembering, fatigue, and weakness were worse in the group whose imaging was interpreted as radiographic disease progression versus stable disease, as well as the functions of walking, work, activity, and self-care (1.1 < difference < 1.8). Patients with disease progression were four times more likely to have a poor KPS (≤80) and worse NFS. Among patients with disease progression at a second assessment (n = 112), all symptoms, except seizures, worsened between first assessment and disease progression and up to 22% of patients (n = 25) reported worsening mobility, self-care, and usual activity; 46% (n = 51) and 35% (n = 30) had worsened KPS and NFS, respectively. On average, 4 symptoms or functions (SD = 3) were reported as moderate-to-severe and 30% (n = 33) and 23% (n = 26) had a change to moderate-to-severe fatigue and walking, respectively, at time of disease progression. Over 7% of patients with worsening (n = 7 of 100) reported every symptom and function as having changed the most severely including seizures with fatigue and activity reported as the top symptom and function, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

The identified core symptoms and functions worsened at the time of progression, supporting the relevance and sensitivity of the priority constructs identified by the RANO-PRO Working Group for clinical care and clinical trials for malignant glioma patients.

FUNDING

The Natural History Study is supported by Intramural Project 1ZIABC011786-03.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study

INTRODUCTION

Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236979.

Opportunities and challenges for the development of "core outcome sets" in neuro-oncology

Core Outcome Sets (COS) define minimum outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical effectiveness trials for a particular health condition/health area. Despite recognition as critical to clinical research design for other health areas, none have been developed for neuro-oncology. COS development projects should carefully consider: scope (how the COS should be used), stakeholders involved in development (including patients as both research partners and participants), and consensus methodologies used (typically a Delphi survey and consensus meeting), as well as dissemination plans. Developing COS for neuro-oncology is potentially challenging due to extensive tumor subclassification (including molecular stratification), different symptoms related to anatomical tumor location, and variation in treatment options. Development of a COS specific to tumor subtype, in a specific location, for a particular intervention may be too narrow and would be unlikely to be used. Equally, a COS that is applicable across a wider area of neuro-oncology may be too broad and therefore lack specificity. This review describes why and how a COS may be developed, and discusses challenges for their development, specific to neuro-oncology. The COS under development are briefly described, including: adult glioma, incidental/untreated meningioma, meningioma requiring intervention, and adverse events from surgical intervention for pediatric brain tumors.

Clinical trial challenges, design considerations, and outcome measures in rare CNS tumors

Clinical research for patients with rare cancers has been very challenging. First and foremost, patient accrual to clinical trials typically requires a network, cooperative group, or even international collaboration in order to achieve the necessary numbers of patients to adequately evaluate a new treatment or intervention. Similar limitations in preclinical models and in the understanding the natural history of the disease or pertinent prognostic factors further impede the development of hypothesis-based, appropriately powered clinical trials. However, despite these challenges, several studies in rare cancers, including ependymoma and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma, have helped to establish new treatment regimens. Importantly, in these seminal trials, patient outcomes measures were critical in describing the clinical benefit derived from the therapy, underscoring the need to incorporate these measures in future trials. While obstacles still remain, novel and creative approaches to clinical trial designs have been developed that can be used to study new treatments for patients with rare cancers, thereby addressing a significant unmet need.

Clinical Trial Considerations in Neuro-oncology

Clinical trials play a critical role in discovering new treatments, but the path to regulatory approval can be cumbersome and time consuming. Efforts to increase the efficiency and interpretability of clinical trials within the neuro-oncology community have focused on standardization of response assessment, development of consensus guidelines for clinical trial conduct, decentralization of clinical trials, removal of barriers to clinical trial accrual, and re-examination of patient eligibility criteria.

A review of the barriers to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools used to measure PROs; they are usually validated questionnaires patients complete by self-assessing their health status. Whilst the benefits of using PROs and PROMs to guide real-time patient care are well established, they have not been adopted by many oncology institutions worldwide. This literature review aimed to examine the barriers associated with using PROs and PROMs in routine oncology care.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted across EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL databases. Studies detailing barriers to routine PRO use for real-time patient care were included; those focusing on PRO collection in the research setting were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 1165 records captured, 14 studies informed this review. At the patient level, patient time, incapacity and difficulty using electronic devices to complete PROMs were prominent barriers. At the health professional level, major barriers included health professionals' lack of time and knowledge to meaningfully interpret and integrate PRO data into their clinical practice and the inability for PRO data to be acted upon. Prominent barriers at the service level included difficulties integrating PROs and PROMs into clinical workflows and inadequate information technology (IT) infrastructures for easy PRO collection.

CONCLUSION

This review has outlined potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice.

Systematic review on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in brain tumor studies: part of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) initiative

Background

The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date.

Methods

A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis.

Results

A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215).

Conclusion

Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

A Position Statement on the Utility of Interval Imaging in Standard of Care Brain Tumour Management: Defining the Evidence Gap and Opportunities for Future Research

OBJECTIV E

To summarise current evidence for the utility of interval imaging in monitoring disease in adult brain tumours, and to develop a position for future evidence gathering while incorporating the application of data science and health economics.

METHODS

Experts in 'interval imaging' (imaging at pre-planned time-points to assess tumour status); data science; health economics, trial management of adult brain tumours, and patient representatives convened in London, UK. The current evidence on the use of interval imaging for monitoring brain tumours was reviewed. To improve the evidence that interval imaging has a role in disease management, we discussed specific themes of data science, health economics, statistical considerations, patient and carer perspectives, and multi-centre study design. Suggestions for future studies aimed at filling knowledge gaps were discussed.

RESULTS

Meningioma and glioma were identified as priorities for interval imaging utility analysis. The "monitoring biomarkers" most commonly used in adult brain tumour patients were standard structural MRI features. Interval imaging was commonly scheduled to provide reported imaging prior to planned, regular clinic visits. There is limited evidence relating interval imaging in the absence of clinical deterioration to management change that alters morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or resource use. Progression-free survival is confounded as an outcome measure when using structural MRI in glioma. Uncertainty from imaging causes distress for some patients and their caregivers, while for others it provides an important indicator of disease activity. Any study design that changes imaging regimens should consider the potential for influencing current or planned therapeutic trials, ensure that opportunity costs are measured, and capture indirect benefits and added value.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for the value, and therefore utility, of regular interval imaging is currently lacking. Ongoing collaborative efforts will improve trial design and generate the evidence to optimise monitoring imaging biomarkers in standard of care brain tumour management.

The Importance of Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Glioblastoma

Navigating care for patients with cancer can be overwhelming considering the multiple specialists they encounter and the numerous decisions they must make. For patients with glioblastoma (GBM), management is further complicated by a poor prognosis, feelings of isolation, urgency to treat, and cognitive decline associated with this rare and progressive disease. For these reasons, it is imperative that shared decision-making (SDM) be integrated into standard practice to ensure that the risks and benefits of all treatments are discussed and weighed with the patient's expectations and goals in mind. In this manuscript, the importance of SDM in GBM and the potential benefits to the practice and patient are discussed from the unique perspective of advocacy leaders. Their insights from interactions with patients and caregivers provide a template for empowering patients, improving patient-physician communication and understanding, and reducing patient and caregiver anxieties. Ultimately, increased SDM may lead to a better quality of life and improved treatment outcomes.

Clinical outcome assessments of motor status in patients undergoing brain tumor surgery

INTRODUCTION

Clinical outcome assessment (COA) is an important instrument for testing the effectiveness of treatments and for supporting healthcare professionals on decision-making. This review aims to assess the use of COAs, and the evaluation time points of motor status in patients with brain tumor (BT) undergoing surgery.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS databases, looking for original studies in primary or secondary BT, having motor function status as the primary outcome.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

mixed sample, BT recurrence, and an unspecific description of motor deficits evaluation.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the eligibility criteria. There were 449 patients assessed. A total of 18 scales evaluated these BT patients, 12 performance outcomes measures (PerfO) tested motor function. Four scales were the clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinRO) found in this review, two assessed performance status, and two rated ambulation. Two patient-reported outcome measures (PRO) appraised functionality.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of instruments were used to assess BT patients. Rehabilitation studies are more likely to associate the use of PerfO and PRO concerning motor and functional status. The use of specific validated scales to the BT population was rare. The lack of a standardized approach hampers the quality of BT patient's assessment.

Research Objectives, Statistical Analyses and Interpretation of Health-Related Quality of Life Data in Glioma Research: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become an increasingly important patient-reported outcome in glioma studies. Ideally, collected HRQoL data should be exploited to the full, with proper analytical methods. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview on how HRQoL data is currently evaluated in glioma studies, focusing on the research objectives and statistical analyses of HRQoL data.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to 5 June 2020. Articles were selected based on predetermined inclusion criteria and information on study design, HRQoL instrument, HRQoL research objective and statistical methods were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 170 articles describing 154 unique studies were eligible, in which 17 different HRQoL instruments were used. HRQoL was the primary outcome in 62% of the included articles, and 51% investigated ≥1 research question with respect to HRQoL, for which various analytical methods were used. In only 42% of the articles analyzing HRQoL results over time, the minimally clinical important difference was reported and interpreted. Eighty-six percent of articles reported HRQoL results at a group level only, and not at the individual patient level.

CONCLUSION

Currently, the assessment and analysis of HRQoL outcomes in glioma studies is highly variable. Opportunities to maximize information obtained with HRQoL data include appropriate and complementary analyses at both the group and individual level, comprehensive reporting of HRQoL results in separate articles or supplementary material, and adherence to existing guidelines about the assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting according to the CONSORT statement in randomized controlled trials with glioblastoma patients

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the best evidence in oncology research. Glioblastoma is the most frequent and deadly primary brain tumor, affecting health-related quality of life. An important end point is patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There are no data regarding how well publications of glioblastoma RCTs report PROs. A specific PRO extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was created to improve the quality of reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to the CONSORT-PRO statement in reporting RCTs addressing the treatment of patients with glioblastoma. PRO analysis methodology was explored and criteria associated with higher quality of reporting were investigated.

Methods

From PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases, all phase 2 and 3 RCTs related to glioblastoma published between 1995 and 2018 were reviewed according to the CONSORT-PRO statements. An overall quality score on a 0 to 100 scale was defined based on these criteria and factors associated with this score were identified.

Results

Forty-four RCTs were identified as relevant according to predefined criteria. The median overall quality score was 26. No difference was observed regarding reporting quality over the years. CONSORT-PRO items concerning data collection and analysis were poorly reported. Thirty-four trials (77%) used longitudinal data. The most frequent statistical method for PROs analysis was the mean change from baseline (63%). Factors associated with improved overall quality score were the presence of a secondary publication dedicated to PROs results, the statement of any targeted dimensions, and when trials reported results using multiple methods.

Conclusion

Despite the importance of measuring PROs in patients with glioblastoma, employment of the CONSORT-PRO statement is poor in RCTs.

The development of the PlexiQoL: A patient-reported outcome measure for adults with neurofibromatosis type 1-associated plexiform neurofibromas

Background

To develop and validate a patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measure of quality of life (QoL), specific to patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1)‐associated plexiform neurofibromas (pNFs), suitable for use in clinical efficacy trials. The study was conducted in parallel in the UK and US.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients to generate questionnaire content. Face and content validity of the draft scale was assessed by cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs). A postal validation survey was conducted to identify the final version of the questionnaire (the PlexiQoL), establish its unidimensionality, and assess its psychometric properties.

Results

Thematic analysis was performed on 42 interview transcripts. Thirty‐one CDIs revealed that patients found the draft scale to be comprehensible, relevant, and easy to complete. The postal validation survey was completed by 273 patients. Rasch analysis identified an 18‐item unidimensional scale that showed excellent internal consistency, reproducibility, and sensitivity to differences in patient‐perceived pNF severity, general health, and the use of pain medication.

Conclusions

The PlexiQoL is the first disease‐specific PRO assessing the ability of adults with NF‐1 associated pNFs to meet their basic human needs. Clinical trials are planned to assess the sensitivity to change of the PlexiQoL in people undergoing treatment for pNFs.

Psychometric validity and reliability of the Danish version of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor Module

Background

The complexity of disease- and treatment-related symptoms causes profound distress and deterioration of health-related quality of life among patients with brain tumors. Currently, there is no Danish validated disease-specific instrument that focuses solely on measures of both neurologic and cancer-related symptoms of patients with brain tumors. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor Module (MDASI-BT) is a validated patient self-report questionnaire that measures symptom prevalence, intensity, and interference with daily life. The aim of the present study was to determine the psychometric validity of the Danish translation of the MDASI-BT, and to test its utility in 3 cohorts of Danish patients across the spectrum of the brain cancer disease and treatment trajectory.

Methods

A linguistic validation process was conducted. Danish patients with malignant primary brain tumors were included to establish the psychometric validity and reliability of the Danish MDASI-BT. Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted to support the psychometric properties.

Results

A total of 120 patients participated in this study. Coefficient αs for the symptom and interference subscales indicate a high level of reliability across all items. Corresponding symptom and interference or functional items and subscales in the MDASI-BT and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor Module BN20 were significantly correlated. Cognitive debriefing provided evidence for content validity and questionnaire utility as participants were comfortable answering the questions and had no problem with the understandability or number of questions asked.

Conclusion

The MDASI-BT is a simple, concise symptom assessment tool useful for assessing the symptom severity and interference of Danish-speaking patients with brain cancer.

Isocitrate Dehydrogenase, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Cognitive Functioning of Glioma Patients: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status has important prognostic implications in glioma patients, with IDH wild-type (IDH-WT) gliomas being associated with worse prognosis and shorter survival when compared with IDH mutant (IDH-mut) gliomas. Optimization of quality of life is a priority in the management of glioma patients. The goal of this systematic review was to identify studies that explored the association of IDH mutation status with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and cognitive functioning of glioma patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies that evaluated the association of IDH mutation status with PROs and/or cognitive functioning of glioma patients were identified from the Pubmed/MEDLINE, Clarivate analytics, and Google Scholar databases. Eight studies (7 journal articles and 2 conference abstracts) with a total of 658 low-grade glioma and high-grade glioma patients investigated the association of cognitive functioning and/or QoL with IDH status. IDH-WT status was associated with greater cognitive impairment relative to IDH-Mut status in three studies, while one study did not find the association between IDH status and perioperative cognitive functioning. One study reported worse postoperative cognitive functioning patients with IDH-WT vs. IDH-mut gliomas. In one study, IDH-WT status was linked to greater impairment on physical and communication functioning after surgery. IDH-WT gliomas are associated with greater cognitive burden than IDH-Mut tumors. The association of IDH status with QoL remains less clear. Assessment of IDH status should be considered when evaluating QoL and cognitive complaints of glioma patients. Further studies linking glioma molecular phenotypes with PROs and cognitive functioning are encouraged.

Glioma patient-reported outcome assessment in clinical care and research: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology collaborative report

Clinical trials of treatments for high-grade gliomas have traditionally relied on measures of response or time-dependent metrics; however, these endpoints have limitations because they do not characterise the functional or symptomatic effect of the condition on the person. Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy is needed because of the substantial burden of symptoms and impaired functioning in this patient population. The US National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to review previous recommendations and existing PRO measures of symptoms and function that can be applied to current trials and clinical practice for high-grade gliomas. Measures were assessed for relevance, relationship to disease and therapy, sensitivity to change, psychometric properties, response format, patient acceptability, and use of self-report. The group also relied on patient input including the results of an online survey, a literature review on available clinical outcomes, expert opinion, and alignment with work done by other organisations. A core set of priority constructs was proposed that allows more comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances efforts to improve the measurement of these core clinical outcomes. The proposed set of constructs was then presented to the Society for Neuro-Oncology Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group and feedback was solicited.

Developing Real-world Evidence-Ready Datasets: Time for Clinician Engagement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Real-world data (RWD) applications in healthcare that support learning health systems and pragmatic clinical trials are gaining momentum, largely due to legislation supporting real-world evidence (RWE) for drug approvals. Clinical notes are thought to be the cornerstone of RWD applications, particularly for conditions with limited effective treatments, extrapolation of treatments from other conditions, or heterogenous disease biology and clinical phenotypes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Here, we discuss current issues in applying RWD captured at the point-of-care and provide a framework for clinicians to engage in RWD collection. To achieve clinically meaningful results, RWD must be reliably captured using consistent terminology in the description of our patients. RWD complements traditional clinical trials and research by informing the generalizability of results, generating new hypotheses, and creating a large data network for scientific discovery. Effective clinician engagement in the development of RWD applications is necessary for continued progress in the field.

Unmet needs and recommendations to improve meningioma care through patient, partner, and health care provider input: a mixed-method study

Background

It has been suggested that lack of ongoing registration of patient-centered outcomes has resulted in existing care trajectories that have not been optimized for sequelae experienced by meningioma patients. This study aimed to evaluate the structure of current meningioma care and identify issues and potential high-impact improvement initiatives.

Methods

Using the grounded theory approach, a thematic framework was constructed based on the Dutch Comprehensive Cancer Organisation survey about issues in meningioma care trajectories. This framework was used during 3 semistructured interviews and 2 focus groups with patient-partner dyads (n = 16 participants), and 2 focus groups with health care providers (n = 11 participants) to assess issues in current meningioma care trajectories and possible solutions, including barriers to and facilitators for implementation.

Results

Identified issues (n = 18 issues) were categorized into 3 themes: availability and provision of information, care and support, and screening for (neurocognitive) rehabilitation. A lack of information about the intervention and possible outcomes or complications, lack of support after treatment focusing on bodily and psychological functions, and reintegration into society were considered most important. Sixteen solutions were suggested, such as appointment of case managers (solution for 11/18 issues, 61%), assessment and treatment by physiatrists (22%), and routine use of patient-reported outcome measures for patient monitoring (17%). Barriers for these solutions were lack of budget, capacity, technology infrastructure, and qualified personnel with knowledge about issues experienced by meningioma patients.

Conclusions

This study identified issues in current multidisciplinary meningioma care that are considered unmet needs by patients, partners, and health care providers and could guide innovation of care.

In silico study of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma: collaboration of radiologists and radiation oncologists in the estimation of extent of high dose RT region

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Oncologists play a vital role in the interpretation of radiographic results in glioblastoma patients. Molecular pathology and information on radiation treatment protocols among others are all important for accurate interpretation of radiology images. One important issue that may arise in interpreting such images is the phenomenon of tumor "pseudoprogression"; oncologists need to be able to distinguish this effect from true disease progression.Exact knowledge about the location of high-dose radiotherapy region is needed for valid determination of pseudoprogression according to RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) criteria in neurooncology. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the radiologists' understanding of a radiotherapy high-dose region in routine clinical practice since radiation oncologists do not always report 3-dimensional isodoses when ordering follow up imaging.

METHODS

Eight glioblastoma patients who underwent postresection radiotherapy were included in this study. Four radiologists worked with their pre-radiotherapy planning MR, however, they were blinded to RT target volumes which were defined by radiation oncologists according to current guidelines. The aim was to draw target volume for high dose RT fields (that is the region, where they would consider that there may be a pseudoprogression in future MRI scans). Many different indices describing structure differences were analyzed in comparison with original per-protocol RT target volumes.

RESULTS

The median volume for RT high dose field was 277 ccm (range 218 to 401 ccm) as defined per protocol by radiation oncologist and 87 ccm (range 32-338) as defined by radiologists (median difference of paired difference 31%, range 15-112%). The Median Dice index of similarity was 0.46 (range 0.14 - 0.78), the median Hausdorff distance 25 mm.

CONCLUSION

Continuing effort to improve education on specific procedures in RT and in radiology as well as automatic tools for exporting RT targets is needed in order to increase specificity and sensitivity in response evaluation.

Moving from clinician-defined to patient-reported outcome measures for survivors of high-grade glioma

BACKGROUND

Persons with high-grade glioma face both neurological and cancer-related symptoms from the tumor itself and its treatment affecting their daily lives. Survival alone is not an adequate outcome, the quality of the survivorship experience needs to be regarded with equal importance. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can be used to evaluate treatment effects and symptom management interventions.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to identify the use, challenges, and potential of PRO measures in survivors of high-grade glioma.

METHODS

A narrative expert opinion review was performed on the subject. In addition to our own experiences we searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO for brain tumor-specific PRO measures used in the population of adult patients with high-grade glioma, both original articles and reviews were included.

RESULTS

There are several PRO measures that have been validated for patients with primary brain tumors including high-grade glioma. PRO measures are used both in clinical trials to evaluate the effect of treatment on health-related quality of life, and in daily clinical practice for holistic needs assessment and symptom management. Common PRO measures used for patients with high-grade glioma are European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer general instrument for patients with cancer together with brain tumor module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain, and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Brain Tumor. Neurologic and cognitive disorders often occur in patients with high-grade glioma, which affects patients' ability to self-report over time, making it more challenging in this population. PRO as a primary outcome seems underutilized.

CONCLUSION

For clinical research, PRO measures need to be used together with other clinical outcome measures rather than replacing traditional outcome measures. Moving to more use of PRO measures in survivorship care has potential to improve patient-caregiver-healthcare team communication, symptom management, and quality of care. Implementing PROs in survivorship care should also involve caregivers and a response based on the results.

Opportunities and challenges of incorporating clinical outcome assessments in brain tumor clinical trials

Regulatory agencies have progressively emphasized the importance of assessing broader aspects of patient well-being to better define therapeutic gain. As a result, clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are increasingly used to evaluate the impact, both positive and negative, of cancer treatments and in some instances have played a major factor in the regulatory approval of drugs. Challenges remain, however, in the routine incorporation of these measures in cancer clinical trials, particularly in brain tumor studies. Factors unique to brain tumor patients such as cognitive decline and language dysfunction may hamper their successful implementation. Study designs often relegated these outcome measures to exploratory endpoints, further compromising data completion. New strategies are needed to maximize the complementary information that COAs could add to clinical trials alongside more traditional measures such as progression-free and overall survival. The routine incorporation of COAs as either primary or secondary objectives with attention to minimizing missing data should define a novel clinical trial design. We provide a review of the approaches, challenges, and opportunities for incorporating COAs into brain tumor clinical research, providing a perspective for integrating these measures into clinical trials.