Adult brain tumour research in 2024: Status, challenges and recommendations.

In 2015, a groundswell of brain tumour patient, carer and charity activism compelled the UK Minister for Life Sciences to form a brain tumour research task and finish group. This resulted, in 2018, with the UK government pledging £20m of funding, to be paralleled with £25m from Cancer Research UK, specifically for neuro-oncology research over the subsequent 5 years. Herein, we review if and how the adult brain tumour research landscape in the United Kingdom has changed over that time and what challenges and bottlenecks remain. We have identified seven universal brain tumour research priorities and three cross-cutting themes, which span the research spectrum from bench to bedside and back again. We discuss the status, challenges and recommendations for each one, specific to the United Kingdom.

Communication in the context of glioblastoma treatment: A qualitative study of what matters most to patients, caregivers and health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Patients with glioblastoma have a poor prognosis and treatment is palliative in nature from diagnosis. It is therefore critical that the benefits and burdens of treatments are clearly discussed with patients and caregivers. AIM: To explore experiences and preferences around glioblastoma treatment communication in patients, family caregivers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Qualitative design. A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 adult patients with glioblastoma, 13 caregivers and 5 healthcare professionals were recruited from Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) Communication practice and preferences. Risks and side-effects of anti-tumour treatments were explained clearly, with information layered and repeated. Treatment was often understood to be 'the only option'. Understanding the impact of side-effects could be enhanced, alongside information about support services. (2) What matters most. Patients/caregivers valued being well-supported by a trusted treatment team, feeling involved, having control and quality of life. Healthcare professionals similarly highlighted trust, maintaining independence and emotional support as key. (3) Decision-making. With limited treatment options, trust and control are crucial in decision-making. Patients ultimately prefer to follow healthcare professional advice but want to be involved, consider alternatives and voice what matters to them. (4) Impact of COVID-19. During the pandemic, greater efforts to maintain good communication were necessary. Negative impacts of COVID-19 were limited, caregivers appeared most disadvantaged by pandemic-related restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: In glioblastoma treatment communication, where prognosis is poor and treatmentwill not result in cure, building trusting relationships, maintaining a sense of control and being well-informed are identified as critical.

Early palliative interventions for improving outcomes in people with a primary malignant brain tumour and their carers.

BACKGROUND: Primary malignant brain tumours can have an unpredictable course, but high-grade gliomas typically have a relentlessly progressive disease trajectory. They can cause profound symptom burden, affecting physical, neurocognitive, and social functioning from an early stage in the illness. This can significantly impact on role function and on the experiences and needs of informal caregivers. Access to specialist palliative and supportive care early in the disease trajectory, for those with high-grade tumours in particular, has the potential to improve patients' and caregivers' quality of life. However, provision of palliative and supportive care for people with primary brain tumours - and their informal caregivers - is historically ill-defined and ad hoc, and the benefits of early palliative interventions have not been confirmed. It is therefore important to define the role and effectiveness of early referral to specialist palliative care services and/or the effectiveness of other interventions focused on palliating disease impact on people and their informal caregivers. This would help guide improvement to service provision, by defining those interventions which are effective across a range of domains, and developing an evidence-based model of integrated supportive and palliative care for this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence base for early palliative care interventions, including referral to specialist palliative care services compared to usual care, for improving outcomes in adults diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their carers. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of electronic databases, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (last searched 16 November 2021). We conducted searches to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative search terms. In addition to this, we searched for any currently recruiting trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, and undertook citation tracking via Scopus. We also handsearched reference lists of potentially eligible systematic review articles to identify any other relevant studies, contacted experts in the field and searched key authors via Web of Science and searched SIGLE (System of Information on Grey Literature in Europe). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies looking at early referral to specialist palliative care services - or early targeted palliative interventions by other healthcare professionals - for improving quality of life, symptom control, psychological outcomes, or overall survival as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies (NRS), as well as qualitative and mixed-methods studies where both qualitative and quantitative data were included. Participants were adults with a confirmed radiological and/or histological diagnosis of a primary malignant brain tumour, and/or informal adult carers (either at individual or family level) of people with a primary malignant brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data extraction, management, and analysis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for symptom control, i.e. cognitive function. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 9748 references from the searches, with 8337 remaining after duplicates were removed. After full-text review, we included one trial. There were no studies of early specialist palliative care interventions or of early, co-ordinated generalist palliative care approaches. The included randomised trial addressed a single symptom area, focusing on early cognitive rehabilitation, administered within two weeks of surgery in a mixed brain tumour population, of whom approximately half had a high-grade glioma. The intervention was administered individually as therapist-led computerised exercises over 16 one-hour sessions, four times/week for four weeks. Sessions addressed several cognitive domains including time orientation, spatial orientation, visual attention, logical reasoning, memory, and executive function. There were no between-group differences in outcome for tests of logical-executive function, but differences were observed in the domains of visual attention and verbal memory. Risk of bias was assessed and stated as high for performance bias and attrition bias but for selective reporting it was unclear whether all outcomes were reported. We considered the certainty of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, to be very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is a lack of research focusing on the introduction of early palliative interventions specifically for people with primary brain tumours, either as co-ordinated specialist palliative care approaches or interventions focusing on a specific aspect of palliation. Future research should address the methodological shortcomings described in early palliative intervention studies in other cancers and chronic conditions. In particular, the specific population under investigation, the timing and the setting of the intervention should be clearly described and the standardised palliative care-specific components of the intervention should be defined in detail.

Interventions for the management of fatigue in adults with a primary brain tumour.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and clinically significant (or high levels) of fatigue. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and checked the reference lists of included studies in April 2022. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue to improve the clinical utility of the findings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JD, DC) independently evaluated search results for the updated search. Two review authors (JD, SYK) extracted data from selected studies, and carried out a risk of bias assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, mood, cognition, quality of life and adverse events outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: The original review identified one study and this update identified a further two for inclusion. One study investigated the use of modafinil, one study the use of armodafinil and one study the use of dexamfetamine. We identified three ongoing studies. In the original review, the single eligible trial compared modafinil to placebo for 37 participants with a high- or low-grade PBT. One new study compared two doses of armodafinil (150 mg and 250 mg) to placebo for 297 people with a high-grade glioma. The second new study compared dexamfetamine sulfate to placebo for 46 participants with a low- or high-grade PBT. The evidence was uncertain for both modafinil and dexamfetamine regarding fatigue outcome measures, compared to controls, at study endpoint. Two trials did not reach the planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. These trials were at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation for one study because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results and information regarding baseline characteristics and randomisation were not clear. The certainty of the evidence measured using GRADE was very low across all three studies. There was one identified study awaiting classification once data are available, which investigated the feasibility of 'health coaching' for people with a PBT experiencing fatigue. There were three ongoing studies that may be eligible for an update of this review, all investigating a non-pharmacological intervention for fatigue in people with PBT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.

Intraoperative imaging technology to maximise extent of resection for glioma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have identified the prognostic relevance of extent of resection in the management of glioma. Different intraoperative technologies have emerged in recent years with unknown comparative efficacy in optimising extent of resection. One previous Cochrane Review provided low- to very low-certainty evidence in single trial analyses and synthesis of results was not possible. The role of intraoperative technology in maximising extent of resection remains uncertain. Due to the multiple complementary technologies available, this research question is amenable to a network meta-analysis methodological approach. OBJECTIVES: To establish the comparative effectiveness and risk profile of specific intraoperative imaging technologies using a network meta-analysis and to identify cost analyses and economic evaluations as part of a brief economic commentary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 5), MEDLINE via Ovid to May week 2 2020, and Embase via Ovid to 2020 week 20. We performed backward searching of all identified studies. We handsearched two journals, Neuro-oncology and the Journal of Neuro-oncology from 1990 to 2019 including all conference abstracts. Finally, we contacted recognised experts in neuro-oncology to identify any additional eligible studies and acquire information on ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating people of all ages with presumed new or recurrent glial tumours (of any location or histology) from clinical examination and imaging (computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or both). Additional imaging modalities (e.g. positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy) were not mandatory. Interventions included fluorescence-guided surgery, intraoperative ultrasound, neuronavigation (with or without additional image processing, e.g. tractography), and intraoperative MRI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results for relevance, undertook critical appraisal according to known guidelines, and extracted data using a prespecified pro forma. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs, using different intraoperative imaging technologies: intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) (2 trials, with 58 and 14 participants); fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) (1 trial, 322 participants); and neuronavigation (1 trial, 45 participants). We identified one ongoing trial assessing iMRI with a planned sample size of 304 participants for which results are expected to be published around winter 2020. We identified no published trials for intraoperative ultrasound. Network meta-analyses or traditional meta-analyses were not appropriate due to absence of homogeneous trials across imaging technologies. Of the included trials, there was notable heterogeneity in tumour location and imaging technologies utilised in control arms. There were significant concerns regarding risk of bias in all the included studies. One trial of iMRI found increased extent of resection (risk ratio (RR) for incomplete resection was 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.96; 49 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and one trial of 5-ALA (RR for incomplete resection was 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.71; 270 participants; low-certainty evidence). The other trial assessing iMRI was stopped early after an unplanned interim analysis including 14 participants; therefore, the trial provided very low-quality evidence. The trial of neuronavigation provided insufficient data to evaluate the effects on extent of resection. Reporting of adverse events was incomplete and suggestive of significant reporting bias (very low-certainty evidence). Overall, the proportion of reported events was low in most trials and, therefore, issues with power to detect differences in outcomes that may or may not have been present. Survival outcomes were not adequately reported, although one trial reported no evidence of improvement in overall survival with 5-ALA (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; 270 participants; low-certainty evidence). Data for quality of life were only available for one study and there was significant attrition bias (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative imaging technologies, specifically 5-ALA and iMRI, may be of benefit in maximising extent of resection in participants with high-grade glioma. However, this is based on low- to very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, the short- and long-term neurological effects are uncertain. Effects of image-guided surgery on overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality of life are unclear. Network and traditional meta-analyses were not possible due to the identified high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and small trials included in this review. A brief economic commentary found limited economic evidence for the equivocal use of iMRI compared with conventional surgery. In terms of costs, one non-systematic review of economic studies suggested that, compared with standard surgery, use of image-guided surgery has an uncertain effect on costs and that 5-ALA was more costly. Further research, including completion of ongoing trials of ultrasound-guided surgery, is needed.

ANTECEDENTES: En múltiples estudios se ha identificado la importancia pronóstica del alcance de la resección en el tratamiento del glioma. En los últimos años han surgido diferentes tecnologías intraoperatorias con una eficacia comparativa desconocida para optimizar el alcance de la resección. Una revisión Cochrane anterior proporcionó evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja en los análisis de un solo ensayo y no fue posible la síntesis de los resultados. La función de la tecnología intraoperatoria para maximizar el alcance de la resección aún no está clara. Debido a las múltiples tecnologías complementarias disponibles, esta pregunta de investigación se presta a un enfoque metodológico de metanálisis en red. OBJETIVOS: Establecer el perfil comparativo de efectividad y riesgo de determinadas tecnologías de imagenología intraoperatorias mediante un metanálisis en red e identificar análisis de costos y evaluaciones económicas como parte de un breve comentario económico. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en CENTRAL (2020, número 5), MEDLINE vía Ovid hasta la semana 2 de mayo de 2020, y Embase vía Ovid hasta la semana 20 de 2020. Se realizó una búsqueda retrospectiva de todos los estudios identificados. Se hicieron búsquedas manuales en dos revistas, Neuro­oncology y Journal of Neuro­oncology, desde 1990 hasta 2019, y se incluyeron todos los resúmenes de congresos. Finalmente, se estableció contacto con expertos reconocidos en neurooncología para identificar cualquier estudio elegible adicional y obtener información sobre los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) en curso. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: ECA que evaluaron a personas de todas las edades con presuntos tumores gliales nuevos o recidivantes (de cualquier ubicación o histología) a partir del examen clínico y la imagenología (tomografía computarizada [TC] o imagenología de resonancia magnética [IRM], o ambas). Las modalidades adicionales de imagenología (p.ej., tomografía de emisión de positrones, espectroscopia de resonancia magnética) no fueron obligatorias. Las intervenciones incluyeron cirugía guiada por fluorescencia, ecografía intraoperatoria, neuronavegación (con o sin procesamiento adicional de las imágenes, p.ej., tractografía) e IRM intraoperatoria. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, evaluaron los resultados de la búsqueda en cuanto a su relevancia, realizaron la evaluación crítica según las guías conocidas y extrajeron los datos mediante un formulario predeterminado. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron cuatro ECA, que utilizaron diferentes tecnologías de imagenología intraoperatorias: la resonancia magnética (IRM) intraoperatoria (dos ensayos, con 58 y 14 participantes); la cirugía guiada por fluorescencia con ácido 5­aminolevulínico (5­ALA) (un ensayo, 322 participantes); y la neuronavegación (un ensayo, 45 participantes). Se identificó un ensayo en curso que evaluó la IRM con un tamaño de la muestra planificado de 304 participantes, del que se espera la publicación de los resultados alrededor del invierno de 2020. No se han identificado ensayos publicados sobre la ecografía intraoperatoria. Los metanálisis en red o los metanálisis tradicionales no fueron apropiados debido a la falta de ensayos homogéneos en tecnologías de imagenología. De los ensayos incluidos, hubo una notable heterogeneidad en la localización de los tumores y en las tecnologías de imagenología utilizadas en los brazos control. Hubo inquietudes significativas con respecto al riesgo de sesgo en todos los estudios incluidos. Un ensayo de IRM encontró un aumento en la extensión de la resección (razón de riesgos [RR] para la resección incompleta 0,13; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,02 a 0,96; 49 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) y un ensayo de 5­ALA (RR para la resección incompleta 0,55; IC del 95%: 0,42 a 0,71; 270 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). El otro ensayo que evaluó la IRM se interrumpió de forma temprana después de un análisis intermedio no planificado que incluyó 14 participantes; por lo tanto, el ensayo proporciona evidencia de calidad muy baja. El ensayo de neuronavegación no proporcionó datos suficientes para evaluar los efectos sobre el grado de resección. El informe de los eventos adversos fue incompleto e indicó la presencia de sesgo de informe significativo (evidencia de certeza muy baja). En general, la proporción de eventos informados fue baja en la mayoría de los ensayos y, por lo tanto, pueden haber estado presentes o no problemas relacionados con el poder estadístico suficiente para detectar diferencias en los desenlaces. No se informó adecuadamente sobre los desenlaces de supervivencia, aunque un ensayo no informó evidencia de mejora en la supervivencia general con 5­ALA (cociente de riesgos instantáneos [CRI] 0,82; IC del 95%: 0,62 a 1,07; 270 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). Solo hubo datos disponibles sobre la calidad de vida de un estudio, con un sesgo de desgaste significativo (evidencia de certeza muy baja). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Las tecnologías de imagenología intraoperatoria, específicamente la IRM y el 5­ALA, pueden ser beneficiosas para maximizar el grado de resección en los participantes con glioma de grado alto. Sin embargo, lo anterior se basa en evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja. Por lo tanto, los efectos neurológicos a corto y a largo plazo no están claros. No están claros los efectos de la cirugía guiada por imágenes sobre la supervivencia general, la supervivencia sin progresión ni la calidad de vida. No fue posible realizar metanálisis en red ni tradicionales debido al alto riesgo de sesgo identificado, a la heterogeneidad y a los ensayos pequeños incluidos en esta revisión. Un comentario económico breve encontró evidencia económica limitada sobre el uso equívoco de la IRM en comparación con la cirugía convencional. En cuanto a los costos, una revisión no sistemática de estudios económicos indicó que, en comparación con la cirugía estándar, el uso de la cirugía guiada por imágenes no tiene un efecto claro sobre los costos y que el ácido 5­aminolevulínico fue más costoso. Se necesitan estudios de investigación adicionales, incluida la finalización de los ensayos en curso sobre la cirugía guiada por ecografía.

Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most effective and best-tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost-effectiveness associated with these approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro-oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined 'elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining 'elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta-analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self-care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair-wise meta-analyses or narrative syntheses. Seven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent. Overall survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low-certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low-certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only.   One trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population. We were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following. Quality of life Moderate-certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low. Progression-free survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate-certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low- or very low-certainty. Severe adverse events Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate-certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate-certainty evidence). Economic evidence There is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For elderly people with glioblastoma who are self-caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti-cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Interventions to help support caregivers of people with a brain or spinal cord tumour.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and treatment of a brain or spinal cord tumour can have a huge impact on the lives of patients and their families with family caregiving often resulting in considerable burden and distress. Meeting the support needs of family caregivers is critical to maintain their emotional and physical health. Although support for caregivers is becoming more widely available, large-scale implementation is hindered by a lack of high-quality evidence for its effectiveness in the neuro-oncology caregiver population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of supportive interventions at improving the well-being of caregivers of people with a brain or spinal cord tumour. To assess the effects of supportive interventions for caregivers in improving the physical and emotional well-being of people with a brain or spinal cord tumour and to evaluate the health economic benefits of supportive interventions for caregivers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid. We also handsearched relevant published conference abstracts (previous five years), publications in the two main journals in the field (previous year), searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov, and contacted research groups in the field. The initial search was in March 2017 with an update in August 2018 (handsearches completed in January 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where caregivers of neuro-oncology patients constituted more than 20% of the sample and which evaluated changes in caregiver well-being following any supportive intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and carried out risk of bias assessments. We aimed to extract data on the outcomes of psychological distress, burden, mastery, quality of patient-caregiver relationship, quality of life, and physical functioning. MAIN RESULTS: In total, the search identified 2102 records, of which we reviewed 144 in full text. We included eight studies. Four interventions focused on patient-caregiver dyads and four were aimed specifically at the caregiver. Heterogeneity of populations and methodologies precluded meta-analysis. Risk of bias varied, and all studies included only small numbers of neuro-oncology caregivers (13 to 56 participants). There was some evidence for positive effects of caregiver support on psychological distress, mastery, and quality of life (low to very low certainty of evidence). No studies reported significant effects on caregiver burden or quality of patient-caregiver relationship (low to very low certainty of evidence). None of the studies assessed caregiver physical functioning. For secondary outcomes (patient emotional or physical well-being; health economic effects), we found very little to no evidence for the effectiveness of caregiver support. We identified five ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The eight small-scale studies included employed different methodologies across different populations, with low certainty of evidence overall. It is not currently possible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effectiveness of supportive interventions aimed at improving neuro-oncology caregiver well-being. More high-quality research is needed on support for family caregivers of people diagnosed, and living, with a brain or spinal cord tumour.

Intraoperative imaging technology to maximise extent of resection for glioma.

BACKGROUND: Extent of resection is considered to be a prognostic factor in neuro-oncology. Intraoperative imaging technologies are designed to help achieve this goal. It is not clear whether any of these sometimes very expensive tools (or their combination) should be recommended as standard care for people with brain tumours. We set out to determine if intraoperative imaging technology offers any advantage in terms of extent of resection over standard surgery and if any one technology was more effective than another. OBJECTIVES: To establish the overall effectiveness and safety of intraoperative imaging technology in resection of glioma. To supplement this review of effects, we also wished to identify cost analyses and economic evaluations as part of a Brief Economic Commentary (BEC). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 7, 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to June, week 4, 2017), and Embase (1980 to 2017, week 27). We searched the reference lists of all identified studies. We handsearched two journals, the Journal of Neuro-Oncology and Neuro-oncology, from 1991 to 2017, including all conference abstracts. We contacted neuro-oncologists, trial authors, and manufacturers regarding ongoing and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating people of all ages with presumed new or recurrent glial tumours (of any location or histology) from clinical examination and imaging (computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or both). Additional imaging modalities (e.g. positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy) were not mandatory. Interventions included intraoperative MRI (iMRI), fluorescence-guided surgery, ultrasound, and neuronavigation (with or without additional image processing, e.g. tractography). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results for relevance, undertook critical appraisal according to known guidelines, and extracted data using a prespecified pro forma. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four randomised controlled trials, using different intraoperative imaging technologies: iMRI (2 trials including 58 and 14 participants, respectively); fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) (1 trial, 322 participants); and neuronavigation (1 trial, 45 participants). We identified one ongoing trial assessing iMRI with a planned sample size of 304 participants for which results are expected to be published around autumn 2018. We identified no trials for ultrasound.Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to differences in the tumours included (eloquent versus non-eloquent locations) and variations in the image guidance tools used in the control arms (usually selective utilisation of neuronavigation). There were significant concerns regarding risk of bias in all the included studies. All studies included people with high-grade glioma only.Extent of resection was increased in one trial of iMRI (risk ratio (RR) of incomplete resection 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.96; 1 study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence) and in the trial of 5-ALA (RR of incomplete resection 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.71; 1 study, 270 participants; low-quality evidence). The other trial assessing iMRI was stopped early after an unplanned interim analysis including 14 participants, therefore the trial provides very low-quality evidence. The trial of neuronavigation provided insufficient data to evaluate the effects on extent of resection.Reporting of adverse events was incomplete and suggestive of significant reporting bias (very low-quality evidence). Overall, reported events were low in most trials. There was no clear evidence of improvement in overall survival with 5-ALA (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; 1 study, 270 participants; low-quality evidence). Progression-free survival data were not available in an appropriate format for analysis. Data for quality of life were only available for one study and suffered from significant attrition bias (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intra-operative imaging technologies, specifically iMRI and 5-ALA, may be of benefit in maximising extent of resection in participants with high grade glioma. However, this is based on low to very low quality evidence, and is therefore very uncertain. The short- and long-term neurological effects are uncertain. Effects of image-guided surgery on overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality of life are unclear. A brief economic commentary found limited economic evidence for the equivocal use of iMRI compared with conventional surgery. In terms of costs, a non-systematic review of economic studies suggested that compared with standard surgery use of image-guided surgery has an uncertain effect on costs and that 5-aminolevulinic acid was more costly. Further research, including studies of ultrasound-guided surgery, is needed.

European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guidelines for palliative care in adults with glioma.

Patients with glioma present with complex palliative care needs throughout their disease trajectory. The life-limiting nature of gliomas and the presence of specific symptoms related to neurological deterioration necessitate an appropriate and early palliative care approach. The multidisciplinary palliative care task force of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology did a systematic review of the available scientific literature to formulate the best possible evidence-based recommendations for the palliative care of adult patients with glioma, with the aim to reduce symptom burden and improve the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, particularly in the end-of-life phase. When recommendations could not be made because of the scarcity of evidence, the task force either used evidence from studies of patients with systemic cancer or formulated expert opinion. Areas of palliative care that currently lack evidence and thus deserve attention for further research are fatigue, disorders of behaviour and mood, interventions for the needs of caregivers, and timing of advance care planning.

Priorities for methodological research on patient and public involvement in clinical trials: A modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing international interest, there is a lack of evidence about the most efficient, effective and acceptable ways to implement patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify the priorities of UK PPI stakeholders for methodological research to help resolve uncertainties about PPI in clinical trials. DESIGN: A modified Delphi process including a two round online survey and a stakeholder consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 237 people registered of whom 219 (92%) completed the first round. One hundred and eighty-seven of 219 (85%) completed the second; 25 stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Round 1 of the survey comprised 36 topics; 42 topics were considered in round 2 and at the consensus meeting. Approximately 96% of meeting participants rated the top three topics as equally important. These were as follows: developing strong and productive working relationships between researchers and PPI contributors; exploring PPI practices in selecting trial outcomes of importance to patients; and a systematic review of PPI activity to improve the accessibility and usefulness of trial information (eg participant information sheets) for participants. CONCLUSIONS: The prioritized methodological research topics indicate important areas of uncertainty about PPI in trials. Addressing these uncertainties will be critical to enhancing PPI. Our findings should be used in the planning and funding of PPI in clinical trials to help focus research efforts and minimize waste.

Interventions for the management of fatigue in adults with a primary brain tumour.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and high levels of fatigue. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted major co-operative groups with trials in this area. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (JD, SYK, DC) independently evaluated search results, extracted data from selected studies and carried out a bias risk assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, cognition, mood, quality of life and adverse events outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine studies. We excluded eight of these as they did not restrict participation to people with high fatigue. The single eligible trial investigated the use of modafinil compared to placebo. Although this study found a significant improvement over time in the primary outcome of fatigue, the improvement occurred after both modafinil and placebo with no significant difference in response between the two groups. The included trial did not reach its planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. The trial was at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.

The Importance of Quality Patient Advocacy to Biobanks: A Lay Perspective from Independent Cancer Patients Voice (ICPV), Based in the United Kingdom.

Biobanking in the twentieth century will become of increasing importance in health research. Regulation and governance of biobanks must be open and transparent to ensure public trust and confidence and increase donation. Effective Lay Involvement all levels in biobank organisations should be standard practice helping ensure patient benefit remains the central aim and assisting the Promotion of Biobanks and Recruitment of Donors. Properly selected, educated and supported, they become valued members of the Biobank Team. This chapter is based on the work of Independent Cancer Patients' Voice (ICPV) in the UK and recognises that the National Health Service provides a framework which is not universal and neither is the model of patient advocacy which has been developed particularly in cancer research. However, although it has not been easy to find potential members for ICPV, nor to attract funding, we have earned the respect of our professional colleagues by our commitment in giving time and developing the skills necessary to provide effective involvement. These colleagues have enthusiastically mentored and supported us and have provided venues and tutoring for Educational Events. We are sure that patient advocates in other countries would welcome the opportunity for similar involvement and hope our experiences will be of interest.

Concurrent Olaparib and Radiation Therapy in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: The Phase 1 Dose-Escalation PARADIGM Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with glioblastoma who are older or have poor performance status (PS) experience particularly poor clinical outcomes. At the time of study initiation, these patients were treated with short-course radiation therapy (40 Gy in 15 fractions). Olaparib is an oral inhibitor of the DNA repair enzyme poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) that is well tolerated as a single agent but exacerbates acute radiation toxicity in extracranial sites. Preclinical data predicted that PARP inhibitors would enhance radiosensitivity in glioblastoma without exacerbating adverse effects on the normal brain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Phase 1 of the PARADIGM trial was a 3+3 dose-escalation study testing olaparib in combination with radiation therapy (40 Gy 15 fractions) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who were unsuitable for radical treatment either because they were aged 70 years or older (World Health Organization PS 0-1) or aged 18 to 69 years with PS 2. The primary outcome was the recommended phase 2 dose of olaparib. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Effects on cognitive function were assessed via the Mini Mental State Examination. RESULTS: Of 16 eligible patients (56.25% male; median age, 71.5 years [range, 44-78]; 75% PS 0-1), 1 dose-limiting toxicity was reported (grade 3 agitation). Maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended phase 2 dose was determined as 200 mg twice daily. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.8 months (80% CI, 7.3-11.4) and 5.5 months (80% CI, 3.9-5.9), respectively. Mini Mental State Examination plots indicated that cognitive function was not adversely affected by the olaparib-radiation therapy combination. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib can be safely combined with hypofractionated brain radiation therapy and is well tolerated in patients unsuitable for radical chemoradiation. These results enabled initiation of a randomized phase 2 study and support future trials of PARP inhibitors in combination with radiation therapy for patients with brain tumors.

Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy: a phase II randomised trial of re-irradiation and chemotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (BRIOChe) - protocol for a multi-centre open-label randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common adult primary malignant brain tumour. The condition is incurable and, despite aggressive treatment at first presentation, almost all tumours recur after a median of 7 months. The aim of treatment at recurrence is to prolong survival and maintain health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Chemotherapy is typically employed for recurrent GBM, often using nitrosourea-based regimens. However, efficacy is limited, with reported median survivals between 5 and 9 months from recurrence. Although less commonly used in the UK, there is growing evidence that re-irradiation may produce survival outcomes at least similar to nitrosourea-based chemotherapy. However, there remains uncertainty as to the optimum approach and there is a paucity of available data, especially with regards to HRQoL. Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy (BRIOChe) aims to assess re-irradiation, as an acceptable treatment option for recurrent IDH-wild-type GBM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BRIOChe is a phase II, multi-centre, open-label, randomised trial in patients with recurrent GBM. The trial uses Sargent's three-outcome design and will recruit approximately 55 participants from 10 to 15 UK radiotherapy sites, allocated (2:1) to receive re-irradiation (35 Gy in 10 daily fractions) or nitrosourea-based chemotherapy (up to six, 6-weekly cycles). The primary endpoint is overall survival rate for re-irradiation patients at 9 months. There will be no formal statistical comparison between treatment arms for the decision-making primary analysis. The chemotherapy arm will be used for calibration purposes, to collect concurrent data to aid interpretation of results. Secondary outcomes include HRQoL, dexamethasone requirement, anti-epileptic drug requirement, radiological response, treatment compliance, acute and late toxicities, progression-free survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: BRIOChe obtained ethical approval from Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (reference no. 20/NI/0070). Final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to the ICMJE guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60524.

The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review.

Background: The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods: Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study.

Background: Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution. Methods: A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified. Results: In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting. Conclusions: A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS.

Lifestyle coaching is feasible in fatigued brain tumor patients: A phase I/feasibility, multi-center, mixed-methods randomized controlled trial.

Background: There are no effective treatments for brain tumor-related fatigue. We studied the feasibility of two novel lifestyle coaching interventions in fatigued brain tumor patients. Methods: This phase I/feasibility multi-center RCT recruited patients with a clinically stable primary brain tumor and significant fatigue (mean Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI] score ≥ 4/10). Participants were randomized in a 1-1-1 allocation ratio to: Control (usual care); Health Coaching ("HC", an eight-week program targeting lifestyle behaviors); or HC plus Activation Coaching ("HC + AC", further targeting self-efficacy). The primary outcome was feasibility of recruitment and retention. Secondary outcomes were intervention acceptability, which was evaluated via qualitative interview, and safety. Exploratory quantitative outcomes were measured at baseline (T0), post-interventions (T1, 10 weeks), and endpoint (T2, 16 weeks). Results: n = 46 fatigued brain tumor patients (T0 BFI mean = 6.8/10) were recruited and 34 were retained to endpoint, establishing feasibility. Engagement with interventions was sustained over time. Qualitative interviews (n = 21) suggested that coaching interventions were broadly acceptable, although mediated by participant outlook and prior lifestyle. Coaching led to significant improvements in fatigue (improvement in BFI versus control at T1: HC=2.2 points [95% CI 0.6, 3.8], HC + AC = 1.8 [0.1, 3.4], Cohen's d [HC] = 1.9; improvement in FACIT-Fatigue: HC = 4.8 points [-3.7, 13.3]; HC + AC = 12 [3.5, 20.5], d [HC and AC] = 0.9). Coaching also improved depressive and mental health outcomes. Modeling suggested a potential limiting effect of higher baseline depressive symptoms. Conclusions: Lifestyle coaching interventions are feasible to deliver to fatigued brain tumor patients. They were manageable, acceptable, and safe, with preliminary evidence of benefit on fatigue and mental health outcomes. Larger trials of efficacy are justified.

TORPEdO: A phase III trial of intensity-modulated proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for multi-toxicity reduction in oropharyngeal cancer.

•There is a lack of prospective level I evidence for the use of PBT for most adult cancers including oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).•TORPEdO is the UK's first PBT clinical trial and aims to determine the benefits of PBT for OPSCC.•Training and support has been provided before and during the trial to reduce variations of contouring and radiotherapy planning.•There is a strong translational component within TORPEdO. Imaging and physics data along with blood, tissue collection will inform future studies in refining patient selection for IMPT.