Rationale and design of the 500-patient, 3-year, and prospective Vigilant ObservatIon of GlIadeL WAfer ImplaNT registry.

Implantation of biodegradable wafers impregnated with carmustine (BCNU) is one of the few chemotherapeutic modalities that have been evaluated in Phase III trials and approved by the US FDA for treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma and recurrent glioblastoma. Enrolling up to 500 patients for 3-year follow-up at over 30 sites, the prospective Vigilant ObservatIon of GlIadeL WAfer ImplaNT (VIGILANT) registry (NCT02684838) will evaluate BCNU wafers for treatment of CNS malignancies in contemporary practice and in the new era of molecular tumor analysis. Subgroup analyses will include tumor type, molecular marker status, and treatment combinations. Interim analyses from the VIGILANT registry will be reported until complete results are available in 2024.

A phase II, multicenter trial of rindopepimut (CDX-110) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: the ACT III study.

BACKGROUND: The epidermal growth factor receptor variant III deletion mutation, EGFRvIII, is expressed in ∼30% of primary glioblastoma and linked to poor long-term survival. Rindopepimut consists of the unique EGFRvIII peptide sequence conjugated to keyhole limpet hemocyanin. In previous phase II trials (ACTIVATE/ACT II), rindopepimut was well tolerated with robust EGFRvIII-specific immune responses and promising progression-free and overall survival. This multicenter, single-arm phase II clinical trial (ACT III) was performed to confirm these results. METHODS: Rindopepimut and standard adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy were administered to 65 patients with newly diagnosed EGFRvIII-expressing (EGFRvIII+) glioblastoma after gross total resection and chemoradiation. RESULTS: Progression-free survival at 5.5 months (∼8.5 mo from diagnosis) was 66%. Relative to study entry, median overall survival was 21.8 months, and 36-month overall survival was 26%. Extended rindopepimut vaccination (up to 3.5+ years) was well tolerated. Grades 1-2 injection site reactions were frequent. Anti-EGFRvIII antibody titers increased ≥4-fold in 85% of patients, and increased with duration of treatment. EGFRvIII was eliminated in 4/6 (67%) tumor samples obtained after >3 months of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms, in a multicenter setting, the preliminary results seen in previous phase II trials of rindopepimut. A pivotal, double-blind, randomized, phase III trial ("ACT IV") is under way.

Recursive partitioning analysis of prognostic variables in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors are rare, and median survival varies widely. Analysis of 1p19q deletion is performed commonly and is an important prognostic factor. However, age and other clinical variables also carry prognostic value, and it is unclear how to incorporate them into clinical decision making or to combine them for prognostication. METHODS: We compiled a retrospective database of 1013 patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas or oligoastrocytomas and performed a recursive partitioning analysis to generate independent prognostic classes among 587 patients with informative 1p19q status. Variables included for survival classification were age (continuous), history of prior low-grade glioma, 1p19q deletion status, histology (presence or absence of an astrocytic component), tumor lobe, tumor hemisphere, gender, extent of resection, postresection treatment, and performance status at diagnosis. RESULTS: Recursive partitioning analysis identified 5 prognostic groups based on hazard similarity: class I (age <60 y, 1p19q codeleted), class II (age <43 y, not codeleted), class III (age 43-59 y, not codeleted, frontal lobe tumor or age ≥60 y, codeleted), class IV (age 43-59 y, not codeleted, not frontal lobe tumor or age 60-69 y, not codeleted), and class V (age ≥70 y, not codeleted). Survival differences were highly significant (P < .0001), with medians ranging from 9.3 years (95% CI: 8.4-16.0) for class I to 0.6 years (95% CI: 0.5-0.9) for class V. CONCLUSIONS: These 5 distinct classification groups were defined using prognostic factors typically obtained during routine management of patients with anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. Validation in a prospective clinical trial may better differentiate patients with respect to treatment outcome.

Anaplastic glioma.

OPINION STATEMENT: The treatment of anaplastic glioma (AG) varies depending on histopathology of the tumor, molecular markers, and individual patient characteristics. Maximal surgical resection is desirable for all types of AG if technically feasible, with an acceptable level of risk, and with the goal of preserving neurologic function. As opposed to the standard treatment of glioblastoma, based on a large, randomized, phase 3 trial, there is no accepted standard treatment for AG. Anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) is most often treated with radiotherapy (RT), with or without concomitant temozolomide (TMZ) and with or without adjuvant temozolomide. Rarely is AA treated with chemotherapy alone, although different treatment modalities are being evaluated in ongoing trials. The treatment of anaplastic oligodendroglioma (AO) and anaplastic oligoastrocytoma (AOA) is influenced by the 1p/19q status, as allelic co-deletion of chromosomes 1p and 19q predicts increased sensitivity to chemotherapy and prolonged survival. In contrast to the treatment of AA, carefully selected patients with AO and AOA may be treated with chemotherapy alone. Temozolomide has largely replaced PCV (procarbazine, CCNU, vincristine) as the chemotherapeutic agent for AO and AOA, largely due to greater tolerability and less potential for toxicity. However, whether temozolomide has similar efficacy to PCV has not been fully evaluated. Patients with AO and AOA with significant residual tumor after surgery, intractable seizures, and/or non co-deleted 1p/19q status are often treated with RT with or without concomitant chemotherapy and with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. There is no standard postoperative care for anaplastic ependymoma (AE). The efficacy of upfront versus delayed RT has not been evaluated. Surgery may be indicated for patients with recurrent AG. There may be benefit on overall survival, although this has not been clearly proven. Reoperation may also provide symptomatic relief and confirm the pathology, including differentiation of radiation necrosis from recurrent tumor. Confirmation of tumor grade is often important for enrollment in clinical trials, a reasonable treatment choice for patients with recurrent tumor. Treatment of recurrent AG often depends on prior treatments. Patients who have progressed after RT alone may be treated with temozolomide or PCV. Patients treated previously with chemotherapy alone may be treated with RT at time of progression. Dose-intense temozolomide, bevacizumab alone, or bevacizumab in combination with a cytotoxic agent are other treatment options. Focused radiation such as stereotactic radiosurgery has no proven role in treating recurrent AG. A number of other treatment modalities are currently under active investigation, including targeted molecular inhibitors, immunotherapies, convection enhanced delivery, and viral gene therapies. There is no standard treatment for recurrent AE. Most patients undergo re-resection followed by RT if RT was not previously given. Chemotherapy may be given, but there is no standard chemotherapeutic regimen. Ongoing trials are evaluating the role of bevicizumab and targeted molecular agents in the treatment of AE.

Initial treatment patterns over time for anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors.

Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors are rare neoplasms with no standard approach to treatment. We sought to determine patterns of treatment delivered over time and identify clinical correlates of specific strategies using an international retrospective cohort of 1013 patients diagnosed from 1981-2007. Prior to 1990, most patients received radiotherapy (RT) alone as initial postoperative treatment. After 1990, approximately 50% of patients received both RT and chemotherapy (CT) sequentially and/or concurrently. Treatment with RT alone became significantly less common (67% in 1980-1984 vs 5% in 2005-2007, P < .0001). CT alone was more frequently administered in later years (0% in 1980-1984 vs 38% in 2005-2007; P < .0001), especially in patients with 1p19q codeleted tumors (57% of codeleted vs 4% with no deletion in 2005-2007; P < .0001). Temozolomide replaced the combination of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) among patients who received CT alone or with RT (87% vs 2% in 2005-2007). In the most recent time period, patients with 1p19q codeleted tumors were significantly more likely to receive CT alone (with temozolomide), whereas RT with temozolomide was a significantly more common treatment strategy than either CT or RT alone in cases with no deletion (P < .0001). In a multivariate polytomous logistic regression model, the following were significantly associated with type of treatment delivered: date (5-year interval) of diagnosis (P < .0001), 1p19q codeletion (P < .0001), pure anaplastic oligodendroglioma histology (P < .01), and frontal lobe predominance (P < .05). Limited level 1 evidence is currently available to guide treatment decisions, and ongoing phase III trials will be critical to understanding the optimal therapy.

Apparent diffusion coefficient histogram analysis stratifies progression-free and overall survival in patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab: a multi-center study.

We have tested the predictive value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis in stratifying progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in bevacizumab-treated patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) from the multi-center BRAIN study. Available MRI's from patients enrolled in the BRAIN study (n = 97) were examined by generating ADC histograms from areas of enhancing tumor on T1 weighted post-contrast images fitted to a two normal distribution mixture curve. ADC classifiers including the mean ADC from the lower curve (ADC-L) and the mean lower curve proportion (LCP) were tested for their ability to stratify PFS and OS by using Cox proportional hazard ratios and the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Mean ADC-L was 1,209 × 10(-6)mm(2)/s ± 224 (SD), and mean LCP was 0.71 ± 0.23 (SD). Low ADC-L was associated with worse outcome. The hazard ratios for 6-month PFS, overall PFS, and OS in patients with less versus greater than mean ADC-L were 3.1 (95 % confidence interval: 1.6, 6.1; P = 0.001), 2.3 (95 % CI: 1.3, 4.0; P = 0.002), and 2.4 (95 % CI: 1.4, 4.2; P = 0.002), respectively. In patients with ADC-L <1,209 and LCP >0.71 versus ADC-L >1,209 and LCP <0.71, there was a 2.28-fold reduction in the median time to progression, and a 1.42-fold decrease in the median OS. The predictive value of ADC histogram analysis, in which low ADC-L was associated with poor outcome, was confirmed in bevacizumab-treated patients with recurrent GBM in a post hoc analysis from the multi-center (BRAIN) study.

International retrospective study of over 1000 adults with anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors.

Treatment for newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors is controversial. Radiotherapy (RT) alone and in combination with chemotherapy (CT) are the most well studied strategies. However, CT alone is often advocated, especially in cases with 1p19q codeletion. We retrospectively identified 1013 adults diagnosed from 1981-2007 treated initially with RT alone (n = 200), CT + RT (n = 528), CT alone (n = 201), or other strategies (n = 84). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.3 years and time to progression (TTP) was 3.1 years. 1p19q codeletion correlated with longer OS and TTP than no 1p or 19q deletion. In codeleted cases, median TTP was longer following CT + RT (7.2 y) than following CT (3.9 y, P = .003) or RT (2.5 y, P < .001) alone but without improved OS; median TTP was longer following treatment with PCV alone than temozolomide alone (7.6 vs. 3.3 y, P = .019). In cases with no deletion, median TTP was longer following CT + RT (3.1 y) than CT (0.9 y, P = .0124) or RT (1.1 y, P < .0001) alone; OS also favored CT + RT (median 5.0 y) over CT (2.2 y, P = .02) or RT (1.9 y, P < .0001) alone. In codeleted cases, CT alone did not appear to shorten OS in comparison with CT + RT, and PCV appeared to offer longer disease control than temozolomide but without a clear survival advantage. Combined CT + RT led to longer disease control and survival than did CT or RT alone in cases with no 1p19q deletion. Ongoing trials will address these issues prospectively.

The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with other treatment modalities? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with newly diagnosed solid brain metastases amenable to SRS; lesions amenable to SRS are typically defined as measuring less than 3 cm in maximum diameter and producing minimal (less than 1 cm of midline shift) mass effect. Recommendations SRS plus WBRT vs. WBRT alone Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT leads to significantly longer patient survival compared with WBRT alone for patients with single metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or = 70.Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior in terms of local tumor control and maintaining functional status when compared to WBRT alone for patients with 1-4 metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or =70.Level 2 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT may lead to significantly longer patient survival than WBRT alone for patients with 2-3 metastatic brain tumors.Level 3 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS<70 [corrected].Level 4 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS < 70. SRS plus WBRT vs. SRS alone Level 2 Single-dose SRS alone may provide an equivalent survival advantage for patients with brain metastases compared with WBRT + single-dose SRS. There is conflicting class I and II evidence regarding the risk of both local and distant recurrence when SRS is used in isolation, and class I evidence demonstrates a lower risk of distant recurrence with WBRT; thus, regular careful surveillance is warranted for patients treated with SRS alone in order to provide early identification of local and distant recurrences so that salvage therapy can be initiated at the soonest possible time. Surgical Resection plus WBRT vs. SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, vs. SRS plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3: Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. SRS alone vs. WBRT alone Level 3 While both single-dose SRS and WBRT are effective for treating patients with brain metastases, single-dose SRS alone appears to be superior to WBRT alone for patients with up to three metastatic brain tumors in terms of patient survival advantage.

The role of chemotherapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed brain metastases; however, the recommendation below does not apply to the exquisitely chemosensitive tumors, such as germinomas metastatic to the brain. RECOMMENDATION: Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT)? Level 1 Routine use of chemotherapy following WBRT for brain metastases has not been shown to increase survival and is not recommended. Four class I studies examined the role of carboplatin, chloroethylnitrosoureas, tegafur and temozolomide, and all resulted in no survival benefit. Two caveats are provided in order to allow the treating physician to individualize decision-making: First, the majority of the data are limited to non small cell lung (NSCLC) and breast cancer; therefore, in other tumor histologies, the possibility of clinical benefit cannot be absolutely ruled out. Second, the addition of chemotherapy to WBRT improved response rates in some, but not all trials; response rate was not the primary endpoint in most of these trials and end-point assessment was non-centralized, non-blinded, and post-hoc. Enrollment in chemotherapy-related clinical trials is encouraged.

The role of surgical resection in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. Recommendations Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below. Question Does surgical resection in addition to WBRT improve outcomes when compared with WBRT alone? Target population This recommendation applies to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection; however, the recommendation does not apply to relatively radiosensitive tumors histologies (i.e., small cell lung cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, germ cell tumors and multiple myeloma). Recommendation Surgical resection plus WBRT versus WBRT alone Level 1 Class I evidence supports the use of surgical resection plus post-operative WBRT, as compared to WBRT alone, in patients with good performance status (functionally independent and spending less than 50% of time in bed) and limited extra-cranial disease. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for patients with poor performance scores, advanced systemic disease, or multiple brain metastases.

The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS + or - WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below.

The role of steroids in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Do steroids improve neurologic symptoms in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared to no treatment? If steroids are given, what dose should be used? Comparisons include: (1) steroid therapy versus none. (2) comparison of different doses of steroid therapy. TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults diagnosed with brain metastases. RECOMMENDATIONS: Steroid therapy versus no steroid therapy Asymptomatic brain metastases patients without mass effect Insufficient evidence exists to make a treatment recommendation for this clinical scenario. Brain metastases patients with mild symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. It is recommended for patients who are symptomatic from metastatic disease to the brain that a starting dose of 4-8 mg/day of dexamethasone be considered. Brain metastases patients with moderate to severe symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. If patients exhibit severe symptoms consistent with increased intracranial pressure, it is recommended that higher doses such as 16 mg/day or more be considered. Choice of Steroid Level 3 If corticosteroids are given, dexamethasone is the best drug choice given the available evidence. Duration of Corticosteroid Administration Level 3 Corticosteroids, if given, should be tapered slowly over a 2 week time period, or longer in symptomatic patients, based upon an individualized treatment regimen and a full understanding of the long-term sequelae of corticosteroid therapy. Given the very limited number of studies (two) which met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, these are the only recommendations that can be offered based on this methodology. Please see "Discussion" and "Summary" section for additional details.

The role of prophylactic anticonvulsants in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Do prophylactic anticonvulsants decrease the risk of seizure in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared with no treatment? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with solid brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 For adults with brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease, routine prophylactic use of anticonvulsants is not recommended. Only a single underpowered randomized controlled trial (RCT), which did not detect a difference in seizure occurrence, provides evidence for decision-making purposes.

The role of emerging and investigational therapies for metastatic brain tumors: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline of selected topics.

QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the emerging and investigational therapies for the treatment of metastatic brain tumors? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with brain metastases. RECOMMENDATIONS: New radiation sensitizers Level 2 A subgroup analysis of a large prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) suggested a prolongation of time to neurological progression with the early use of motexafin-gadolinium (MGd). Nonetheless this was not borne out in the overall study population and therefore an unequivocal recommendation to use the currently available radiation sensitizers, motexafin-gadolinium and efaproxiral (RSR 13) cannot be provided. Interstitial modalities There is no evidence to support the routine use of new or existing interstitial radiation, interstitial chemotherapy and or other interstitial modalities outside of approved clinical trials. New chemotherapeutic agents Level 2 Treatment of melanoma brain metastases with whole brain radiation therapy and temozolomide is reasonable based on one class II study. Level 3 Depending on individual circumstances there may be patients who benefit from the use of temozolomide or fotemustine in the therapy of their brain metastases. Molecular targeted agents Level 3 The use of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors may be of use in the management of brain metastases from non-small cell lung carcinoma.

The role of retreatment in the management of recurrent/progressive brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the use of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases? TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously been treated with WBRT, surgical resection and/or radiosurgery. Recurrent/progressive brain metastases are defined as metastases that recur/progress anywhere in the brain (original and/or non-original sites) after initial therapy. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 Since there is insufficient evidence to make definitive treatment recommendations in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases, treatment should be individualized based on a patient's functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged. In this context, the following can be recommended depending on a patient's specific condition: no further treatment (supportive care), re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy. Question If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes? No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question.

Chemotherapy for low-grade gliomas.

Low-grade gliomas pose a difficult problem for the neuro-oncologist. More needs to be known about their natural history. In addition, the role and timing of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the management of low-grade tumors is highly controversial. Most agree that physicians should recommend treatment in symptomatic cases or in instances of radiologic tumor progression. This review discusses some of the recent advances with respect to chemotherapy for low-grade gliomas, with a special emphasis on low-grade astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas.