The role of molecular biomarkers in recurrent glioblastoma trials: an assessment of the current trial landscape of genome-driven oncology.

For glioblastoma patients, the efficacy-targeted therapy is limited to date. Most of the molecular therapies previously studied are lacking efficacy in this population. More trials are needed to study the actual actionability of biomarkers in (recurrent) glioblastoma. This study aimed to assess the current clinical trial landscape to assess the role of molecular biomarkers in trials on recurrent glioblastoma treatment. The database ClinicalTrials.gov was used to identify not yet completed clinical trials on recurrent glioblastoma in adults. Recruiting studies were assessed to investigate the role of molecular criteria, which were retrieved as detailed as possible. Primary outcome was molecular criteria used as selection criteria for study participation. Next to this, details on moment and method of testing, and targets and drugs studied, were collected. In 76% (181/237) of the included studies, molecular criteria were not included in the study design. Of the remaining 56 studies, at least one specific genomic alteration as selection criterium for study participation was required in 33 (59%) studies. Alterations in EGFR, CDKN2A/B or C, CDK4/6, and RB were most frequently investigated, as were the corresponding drugs abemaciclib and ribociclib. Of the immunotherapies, CAR-T therapies were the most frequently studied therapies. Previously, genomics studies have revealed the presence of potentially actionable alterations in glioblastoma. Our study shows that the potential efficacy of targeted treatment is currently not translated into genome-driven trials in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. An intensification of genome-driven trials might help in providing evidence for (in)efficacy of targeted treatments.

Whole genome sequencing in (recurrent) glioblastoma: challenges related to informed consent procedures and data sharing.

Increased use of whole genome sequencing (WGS) in neuro-oncology for diagnostics and research purposes necessitates a renewed conversation about informed consent procedures and governance structures for sharing personal health data. There is currently no consensus on how to obtain informed consent for WGS in this population. In this narrative review, we analyze the formats and contents of frameworks suggested in literature for WGS in oncology and assess their benefits and limitations. We discuss applicability, specific challenges, and legal context for patients with (recurrent) glioblastoma. This population is characterized by the rarity of the disease, extremely limited prognosis, and the correlation of the stage of the disease with cognitive abilities. Since this has implications for the informed consent procedure for WGS, we suggest that the content of informed consent should be tailor-made for (recurrent) glioblastoma patients.

Maximizing Treatment Opportunities: Assessing Protocol Waivers' Impact on Safety and Outcome in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.

PURPOSE: Although eligibility criteria are essential in trial design, overly restrictive criteria contribute to low accrual and limited generalizability. To enhance trial inclusivity, there has been growing interest in broadening eligibility criteria, especially for patients with advanced or treatment-refractory disease. Yet, the impact on patient safety remains uncertain. In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), protocol exceptions are frequently requested and occasionally granted. Here we describe the impact of these waivers on treatment safety and efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DRUP is a multicenter, nonrandomized clinical basket trial treating patients with therapy-refractory cancer with molecularly targeted and immunotherapies outside their registered indications (NCT02925234). Here, all granted waivers were revised, analyzed in terms of safety and efficacy outcome, and comparedwithoutcomes of includedpatientswho didnot receive awaiver. RESULTS: Between September 1, 2016, and September 1, 2021, protocol waivers were granted for 82 patients (8%) of 1,019 included patients in DRUP. Most waivers (45%) were granted for general- or drug-related eligibility criteria; other categories were out-of-window testing, treatment, and testing exceptions. Serious adverse event rate was similar between patients who received a waiver (pW) and patients who did not (pNW): 39% vs. 41%, respectively (P = 0.81). The clinical benefit (either objective response or stable disease ≥ 16 weeks) rate of pW was 40% versus 33% in pNW (P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted. These data support a more personalized approach in assessing eligibility criteria, especially in trials with widely used and approved drugs accruing patients without other treatment options. See related commentary by Waqar and Govindan, p. 3655.

Baseline and on Treatment Biodistribution Variability of 18 F-FLT Uptake in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: Brief Communication.

PURPOSE: This prospective study evaluates the biodistribution of 18 F-FLT PET in patients with advanced melanoma before and after treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen BRAF-positive unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma patients referred for 18 F-FLT PET/CT before (BL) and during (D14) BRAF/MEK inhibition were included. 18 F-FLT accumulation in the liver, bone marrow, blood, and muscle was quantified. RESULTS: Baseline interpatient 18 F-FLT uptake had a coefficient-of-variation between 17.5% and 21.5%. During treatment, liver uptake increased (SUV meanBL = 4.86 ± 0.98, SUV meanD14 = 6.31 ± 1.36, P < 0.001) and bone marrow uptake decreased (SUV meanBL = 7.67 ± 1.65, SUV meanD14 = 6.78 ± 1.19, P < 0.025). Both changes were unrelated to baseline metabolic tumor volume or tumor response. CONCLUSIONS: To assess 18 F-FLT PET, both liver and bone marrow uptake may be used as normal tissue references at baseline, but 18 F-FLT biodistribution significantly changes in longitudinal response studies when treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Focused Ultrasound-Enhanced Liquid Biopsy: A Promising Diagnostic Tool for Brain Tumor Patients.

The performance of minimally invasive molecular diagnostic tools in brain tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has so far been limited by the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The BBB hinders the release of brain tumor biomarkers into the bloodstream. The use of focused ultrasound in conjunction with microbubbles has been shown to temporarily open the BBB (FUS-BBBO). This may enhance blood-based tumor biomarker levels. This systematic review provides an overview of the data regarding FUS-BBBO-enhanced liquid biopsy for primary brain tumors. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase databases with key terms "brain tumors", "liquid biopsy", "FUS" and their synonyms, in accordance with PRISMA statement guidelines. Five preclinical and two clinical studies were included. Preclinical studies utilized mouse, rat and porcine glioma models. Biomarker levels were found to be higher in sonicated groups compared to control groups. Both stable and inertial microbubble cavitation increased biomarker levels, whereas only inertial cavitation induced microhemorrhages. In clinical studies involving 14 patients with high-grade brain tumors, biomarker levels were increased after FUS-BBBO with stable cavitation. In conclusion, FUS-BBBO-enhanced liquid biopsy using stable cavitation shows diagnostic potential for primary brain tumors. Further research is imperative before integrating FUS-BBBO for liquid biopsy enhancement into clinical practice.

Next generation sequencing of high-grade adult-type diffuse glioma in the Netherlands: interlaboratory variation in the primary diagnostic and recurrent setting.

PURPOSE: Next generation sequencing (NGS) is an important tool used in clinical practice to obtain the required molecular information for accurate diagnostics of high-grade adult-type diffuse glioma (HGG). Since individual centers use either in-house produced or standardized panels, interlaboratory variation could play a role in the practice of HGG diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to investigate the current practice in NGS application for both primary and recurrent HGG. METHODS: This nationwide Dutch survey used the expertise of (neuro)pathologists and clinical scientists in molecular pathology (CSMPs) by sending online questionnaires on clinical and technical aspects. Primary outcome was an overview of panel composition in the different centers for diagnostic practice of HGG. Secondary outcomes included practice for recurrent HGG and future perspectives. RESULTS: Out of twelve neuro-oncology centers, the survey was filled out by eleven (neuro)pathologists and seven CSMPs. The composition of the diagnostic NGS panels differed in each center with numbers of genes ranging from 12 to 523. Differences are more pronounced when tests are performed to find therapeutic targets in the case of recurrent disease: about half of the centers test for gene fusions (60%) and tumor mutational burden (40%). CONCLUSION: Current notable interlaboratory variations as illustrated in this study should be reduced in order to refine diagnostics and improve precision oncology. In-house developed tests, standardized panels and routine application of broad gene panels all have their own advantages and disadvantages. Future research would be of interest to study the clinical impact of variation in diagnostic approaches.

The Predictive Value of FDG PET/CT for Determining Progression-Free Survival in Advanced Stage III-IV BRAF -Mutated Melanoma Patients Treated With Targeted Therapy-What Can Be Learned From Progression?

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to investigate whether (early) PERCIST response monitoring with 18 F-FDG PET/CT is predictive for progression-free survival (PFS) in unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (MEKi) and to define dissemination patterns at progression with a lesion-based evaluation in direct comparison to baseline to improve our understanding of 18 F-FDG PET/CT during BRAF/MEKi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective multicenter single-arm study included 70 patients with unresectable stage III/IV BRAF -mutated melanoma who underwent contrast-enhanced CT and 18 F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and 2 and 7 weeks during treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and at progression if possible. Tumor response assessment was done with RECIST1.1 and PERCIST. Follow-up PET/CT scans were visually compared with baseline to assess dissemination patterns. RESULTS: Using RECIST1.1, PFS was not significantly different between the response groups ( P = 0.26). At 2 weeks, PERCIST median PFS was 15.7 months for patients with complete metabolic response (CMR) versus 8.3 months for non-CMR ( P = 0.035). The hazards ratio (HR) for progression/death in non-CMR versus CMR was 1.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.84; P = 0.040) and 1.77 (95% CI, 0.91-3.43; P = 0.0935) when adjusting for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). At 7 weeks, median PFS for PERCIST CMR was 16.7 months versus 8.5 months for non-CMR ( P = 0.0003). The HR for progression/death in the non-CMR group was significantly increased (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.60-5.40; P = 0.0005), even when adjusting for LDH (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.43-4.91; P = 0.0020). At week 7, 18 F-FDG PET/CT was false-positive in all 4 (6%) patients with new FDG-avid lesions but CMR of known metastases. When 18 F-FDG PET/CT was performed at progressive disease, 18/22 (82%) patients had progression of known metastases with or without new 18 F-FDG-avid lesions. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that PERCIST response assessment at week 7 is predictive for PFS, regardless of LDH. At 2 weeks, patients with CMR have longer PFS than patients with non-CMR, but different PET parameters should be investigated to further evaluate the added value of early 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Disease progression on PET/CT is predominated by progression of known metastases, and new 18 F-FDG-avid lesions during BRAF/MEKi are not automatically a sign of recurrent disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Panitumumab in Patients With RAF/RAS-Wild-Type Glioblastoma: Results From the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of malignant primary high-grade brain tumors, predominantly glioblastomas, is poor despite intensive multimodality treatment options. In more than 50% of patients with glioblastomas, potentially targetable mutations are present, including rearrangements, altered splicing, and/or focal amplifications of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) by signaling through the RAF/RAS pathway. We studied whether treatment with the clinically available anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab provides clinical benefit for patients with RAF/RAS-wild-type (wt) glioblastomas in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). METHODS: Patients with progression of treatment refractory RAF/RASwt glioblastoma were included for treatment with panitumumab in DRUP when measurable according to RANO criteria. The primary endpoints of this study are clinical benefit (CB: defined as confirmed objective response [OR] or stable disease [SD] ≥ 16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon-like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1 and up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1 in 8 patients had CB in stage 1. RESULTS: Between 03-2018 and 02-2022, 24 evaluable patients were treated. CB was observed in 5 patients (21%), including 2 patients with partial response (8.3%) and 3 patients with SD ≥ 16 weeks (12.5%). After median follow-up of 15 months, median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.7 months (95% CI 1.6-2.1 months) and 4.5 months (95% CI 2.9-8.6 months), respectively. No unexpected toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab treatment provides limited CB in patients with recurrent RAF/RASwt glioblastoma precluding further development of this therapeutic strategy.

Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: While shared decision making (SDM) is advocated for ethical reasons and beneficial outcomes, SDM might also negatively affect patients with incurable cancer. The current study explored whether SDM, and an oncologist training in SDM, are associated with adverse outcomes (i.e., patient anxiety, tension, helplessness/hopelessness, decisional uncertainty, and reduced fighting spirit). DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of SDM interventions in the context of advanced cancer. The relations between observed SDM (OPTION12), specific SDM elements (4SDM), oncologist SDM training, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. We modeled adverse outcomes as a multivariate phenomenon, followed by univariate regressions if significant. RESULTS: In total, 194 patients consulted by 31 oncologists were included. In a multivariate analysis, observed SDM and adverse outcomes were significantly related. More specifically, more observed SDM in the consultation was related to patients reporting more tension (P = 0.002) and more decisional uncertainty (P = 0.004) at 1 wk after the consultation. The SDM element "informing about the options" was especially found to be related to adverse outcomes, specifically to more helplessness/hopelessness (P = 0.002) and more tension (P = 0.016) at 1 wk after the consultation. Whether the patient consulted an oncologist who had received SDM training or not was not significantly related to adverse outcomes. No relations with long-term adverse outcomes were found. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for oncologists to realize that for some patients, SDM may temporarily be associated with negative emotions. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and whether and how burden may be minimized for patients. HIGHLIGHTS: Observed shared decision making was related to more tension and uncertainty postconsultation in advanced cancer patientsHowever, training oncologists in SDM did not affect adverse outcomes.Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and how burden may be minimized.

Practice variation in re-resection for recurrent glioblastoma: A nationwide survey among Dutch neuro-oncology specialists.

Background: Despite current best treatment options, a glioblastoma almost inevitably recurs after primary treatment. However, in the absence of clear evidence, current guidelines on recurrent glioblastoma are not well-defined. Re-resection is one of the possible treatment modalities, though it can be challenging to identify those patients who will benefit. Therefore, treatment decisions are made based on multidisciplinary discussions. This study aimed to investigate the current practice variation between neuro-oncology specialists. Methods: In this nationwide study among Dutch neuro-oncology specialists, we surveyed possible practice variation. Via an online survey, 4 anonymized recurrent glioblastoma cases were presented to neurosurgeons, neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists in The Netherlands using a standardized questionnaire on whether and why they would recommend a re-resection or not. The results were used to provide a qualitative analysis of the current practice in The Netherlands. Results: The survey was filled out by 56 respondents, of which 15 (27%) were neurosurgeons, 26 (46%) neuro-oncologists, 2 (4%) medical oncologists, and 13 (23%) radiation oncologists. In 2 of the 4 cases, there appeared to be clinical equipoise. Overall, neurosurgeons tended to recommend re-resection more frequently compared to the other specialists. Neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists showed opposite recommendations in 2 cases. Conclusions: This study showed that re-resection of recurrent glioblastoma is subject to practice variation both between and within neuro-oncology specialties. In the absence of unambiguous guidelines, we observed a relationship between preferred practice and specialty. Reduction of this practice variation is important; to achieve this, adequate prospective studies are essential.

Health-related quality-of-life results from the randomised phase II TAVAREC trial on temozolomide with or without bevacizumab in 1p/19q intact first-recurrence World Health Organization grade 2 and 3 glioma (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26091).

BACKGROUND: In an international randomised controlled phase II study of temozolomide (TMZ) versus TMZ in combination with bevacizumab (BEV) in locally diagnosed non-1p/19q co-deleted World Health Organization grade 2 or 3 gliomas with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy, and overall survival at 12 months was not significantly different (61% in the TMZ arm and 55% in the TMZ + BEV arm). OBJECTIVES: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a key secondary end-point in this trial, and the main objective of this study was to determine the impact of the addition of BEV to TMZ on HRQoL. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (version 3) and QLQ-BN20 at baseline, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. The pre-selected primary HRQoL end-point was the QLQ-C30 global health scale, with self-perceived cognitive functioning and pain selected as secondary HRQoL issues. Analysis was undertaken using linear mixed modelling and complemented with sensitivity analyses using summary statistics. A difference was considered clinically relevant with ≥10 points difference on a 100-point scale. RESULTS: Baseline compliance was high at 94% and remained above 60% until 72 weeks, limiting the analysis to 60 weeks. Compliance was similar in both arms. We found no statistically significant or clinically significant differences between the primary HRQoL end-point in both treatment arms (p = 0.2642). The sensitivity analyses confirmed this finding. The overall test for post-baseline differences between the two treatment arms also showed no statistically or clinically significant differences regarding the selected secondary end-point scales. INTERPRETATION: The addition of BEV to TMZ in this patient group neither improves nor negatively impacts HRQoL.

Limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in advanced cancers with cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations in the Dutch DRUP and Australian MoST trials.

The Dutch Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) and the Australian Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutic (MoST) Program are similar nonrandomized, multidrug, pan-cancer trial platforms that aim to identify signals of clinical activity of molecularly matched targeted therapies or immunotherapies outside their approved indications. Here, we report results for advanced or metastatic cancer patients with tumors harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors palbociclib or ribociclib. We included adult patients that had therapy-refractory solid malignancies with the following alterations: amplifications of CDK4, CDK6, CCND1, CCND2 or CCND3, or complete loss of CDKN2A or SMARCA4. Within MoST, all patients were treated with palbociclib, whereas in DRUP, palbociclib and ribociclib were assigned to different cohorts (defined by tumor type and alteration). The primary endpoint for this combined analysis was clinical benefit, defined as confirmed objective response or stable disease ≥16 weeks. We treated 139 patients with a broad variety of tumor types; 116 with palbociclib and 23 with ribociclib. In 112 evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 0% and clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks was 15%. Median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI: 3-5 months), and median overall survival 5 months (95% CI: 4-6 months). In conclusion, only limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in patients with pretreated cancers harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations was observed. Our findings indicate that monotherapy use of palbociclib or ribociclib is not recommended and that merging data of two similar precision oncology trials is feasible.

Prevalence and Predictors of Physician-Patient Discordance in Prognostic Perceptions in Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discordance between physicians' and patients' prognostic perceptions in advanced cancer care threatens informed medical decision-making and end-of-life preparation, yet this phenomenon is poorly understood. We sought to: (1) describe the extent and direction of prognostic discordance, patients' prognostic information preferences in cases of prognostic discordance, and physicians' awareness of prognostic discordance; and (2) examine which patient, physician, and caregiver factors predict prognostic discordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncologists and advanced cancer patients (median survival ≤12 months; n = 515) from 7 Dutch hospitals completed structured surveys in a cross-sectional study. Prognostic discordance was operationalized by comparing physicians' and patients' perceptions of the likelihood of cure, 2-year mortality risk, and 1-year mortality risk. RESULTS: Prognostic discordance occurred in 20% (likelihood of cure), 24%, and 35% (2-year and 1-year mortality risk) of physician-patient dyads, most often involving patients with more optimistic perceptions than their physician. Among patients demonstrating prognostic discordance, the proportion who preferred not knowing prognosis varied from 7% (likelihood of cure) to 37% (1-year mortality risk), and 45% (2-year mortality risk). Agreement between physician-perceived and observed prognostic discordance or concordance was poor (kappa = 0.186). Prognostic discordance was associated with several patient factors (stronger fighting spirit, self-reported absence of prognostic discussions, an information source other than the healthcare provider), and greater physician-reported uncertainty about prognosis. CONCLUSION: Up to one-third of the patients perceive prognosis discordantly from their physician, among whom a substantial proportion prefers not knowing prognosis. Most physicians lack awareness of prognostic discordance, raising the need to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and to tailor prognostic communication.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers: the phase 2 ROAR trial.

BRAFV600E alterations are prevalent across multiple tumors. Here we present final efficacy and safety results of a phase 2 basket trial of dabrafenib (BRAF kinase inhibitor) plus trametinib (MEK inhibitor) in eight cohorts of patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers: anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n = 36), biliary tract cancer (n = 43), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1), adenocarcinoma of the small intestine (n = 3), low-grade glioma (n = 13), high-grade glioma (n = 45), hairy cell leukemia (n = 55) and multiple myeloma (n = 19). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate in these cohorts was 56%, 53%, 0%, 67%, 54%, 33%, 89% and 50%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were median duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Median DoR was 14.4 months, 8.9 months, not reached, 7.7 months, not reached, 31.2 months, not reached and 11.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 6.7 months, 9.0 months, not reached, not evaluable, 9.5 months, 5.5 months, not evaluable and 6.3 months, respectively. Median OS was 14.5 months, 13.5 months, not reached, 21.8 months, not evaluable, 17.6 months, not evaluable and 33.9 months, respectively. The most frequent (≥20% of patients) treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (40.8%), fatigue (25.7%), chills (25.7%), nausea (23.8%) and rash (20.4%). The encouraging tumor-agnostic activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib suggests that this could be a promising treatment approach for some patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02034110 .

Cancer patients' trust as a motivator to seek a second opinion and its effects on trust.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients may seek a second opinion (SO) driven by reduced trust in their own providers. Their trust may be diminished or reinforced through the SO. This study aimed to assess (1) what proportion of patients seek SOs motivated by lacking trust and how trust changes over time; (2) whether patients' trust differs by the outcome of the SO (i.e. similar/different opinion); and (3) how communication during the SO affects trust. DESIGN: A longitudinal mixed methods study including self-report assessments before (T0), immediately following (T1), and two months after the SO (T2). SO consultations (N = 62) were audio recorded, and patient-oncologist communication about the referring oncologist was coded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported motives and their trust in referring oncologists. RESULTS: Reduced trust motivated 21% of patients to seek a SO. Most patients criticised their referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists generally defended their colleagues, but such affirmation was unrelated to patients' subsequent trust. Over time, trust did not change substantially. Yet, it was restored in patients motivated by impaired trust, and remained low for patients receiving a different medical outcome. CONCLUSION: Patients need support to more constructively discuss their treatment relationship. Oncologists need support in providing independent SOs without harming trust relations.

Study protocol of the GLOW study: maximising treatment options for recurrent glioblastoma patients by whole genome sequencing-based diagnostics-a prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM), the most common glial primary brain tumour, is without exception lethal. Every year approximately 600 patients are diagnosed with this heterogeneous disease in The Netherlands. Despite neurosurgery, chemo -and radiation therapy, these tumours inevitably recur. Currently, there is no gold standard at time of recurrence and treatment options are limited. Unfortunately, the results of dedicated trials with new drugs have been very disappointing. The goal of the project is to obtain the evidence for changing standard of care (SOC) procedures to include whole genome sequencing (WGS) and consequently adapt care guidelines for this specific patient group with very poor prognosis by offering optimal and timely benefit from novel therapies, even in the absence of traditional registration trials for this small volume cancer indication. METHODS: The GLOW study is a prospective diagnostic cohort study executed through collaboration of the Hartwig Medical Foundation (Hartwig, a non-profit organisation) and twelve Dutch centers that perform neurosurgery and/or treat GBM patients. A total of 200 patients with a first recurrence of a glioblastoma will be included. Dual primary endpoint is the percentage of patients who receive targeted therapy based on the WGS report and overall survival. Secondary endpoints include WGS report success rate and number of targeted treatments available based on WGS reports and number of patients starting a treatment in presence of an actionable variant. At recurrence, study participants will undergo SOC neurosurgical resection. Tumour material will then, together with a blood sample, be sent to Hartwig where it will be analysed by WGS. A diagnostic report with therapy guidance, including potential matching off-label drugs and available clinical trials will then be sent back to the treating physician for discussing of the results in molecular tumour boards and targeted treatment decision making. DISCUSSION: The GLOW study aims to provide the scientific evidence for changing the SOC diagnostics for patients with a recurrent glioblastoma by investigating complete genome diagnostics to maximize treatment options for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05186064.

Attitudes Toward Striving for Quality and Length of Life Among Patients With Advanced Cancer and a Poor Prognosis.

PURPOSE: When deliberating palliative cancer treatment, insight into patients' attitudes toward striving for quality of life (QL) and length of life (LL) may facilitate goal-concordant care. We investigated the (1) attitudes of patients with advanced cancer toward striving for QL and/or LL and whether these change over time, and (2) characteristics associated with these attitudes (over time). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial on improving shared decision making (SDM), without differentiation between intervention arms. Patients (n = 173) with advanced cancer, a median life expectancy of < 12 months without anticancer treatment, and a median survival benefit of < 6 months from systemic therapy were included in seven Dutch hospitals. We used audio-recorded consultations and surveys at baseline (T0), shortly after the consultation (T2), at 3 and 6 months (T3 and T4). Primary outcomes were patients' attitudes toward striving for QL and LL (Quality Quantity Questionnaire; T2, T3, and T4). RESULTS: Overall, patients' attitudes toward striving for QL became less positive over 6 months (P < .01); attitudes toward striving for LL did not change on group level. Studying individual patients, 76% showed changes in their attitudes toward striving for QL and/or LL at some point during the study, which occurred in various directions. More helplessness/hopelessness (P < .001), less fighting spirit (P < .05), less state anxiety (P < .001), and more observed SDM (P < .05) related to more positive attitudes toward striving for QL. Lower education, less helplessness/hopelessness, more fighting spirit, and more state anxiety (P < .001) related to more positive attitudes toward striving for LL. CONCLUSION: Oncologists may explore patients' attitudes toward striving for QL and LL repeatedly and address patients' coping style and emotions during SDM to facilitate goal-concordant care throughout the last phase of life.

Characteristics of patients with advanced cancer preferring not to know prognosis: a multicenter survey study.

BACKGROUND: For some patients with advanced cancer not knowing prognosis is essential. Yet, in an era of informed decision-making, the potential protective function of unawareness is easily overlooked. We aimed to investigate 1) the proportion of advanced cancer patients preferring not to know prognosis; 2) the reasons underlying patients' prognostic information preference; 3) the characteristics associated with patients' prognostic information preference; and 4) the concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with structured surveys (PROSPECT). Medical and thoracic oncologists included patients (n = 524), from seven Dutch hospitals, with metastatic/inoperable cancer and an expected median overall survival of ≤ 12 months. For analysis, descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: Twenty-five to 31% of patients preferred not to know a general life expectancy estimate or the 5/2/1-year mortality risk. Compared to patients preferring to know prognosis, patients preferring unawareness more often reported optimism, avoidance and inability to comprehend information as reasons for wanting limited information; and less often reported expectations of others, anxiety, autonomy and a sense of control as reasons for wanting complete information. Females (p < .05), patients receiving a further line of systemic treatment (p < .01) and patients with strong fighting spirit (p < .001) were more likely to prefer not to know prognosis. Concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference was poor (kappa = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: We encourage physicians to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and the underlying reasons explicitly, enabling individually tailored communication. Future studies may investigate changes in patients' prognostic information preferences over time and examine the impact of prognostic disclosure on patients who prefer unawareness.

Complications, compliance, and undertreatment do not explain the relationship between cognition and survival in diffuse glioma patients.

Background: Cognitive deficits occur in all different grades of glioma. In a recent study, we found these deficits to be independently, and possibly causally, related to survival in diffuse gliomas. In this study, we investigated whether the relationship between cognition and survival was mediated by three different factors: undertreatment, complications of treatment, and compliance. We hypothesized that patients with cognitive impairment may undergo less intensive treatment, be less compliant, and suffer more from complications, resulting in shortened survival for cognitively impaired patients. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing awake craniotomy between operative neuropsychological assessments in five cognitive domains. We used Structural Equation Modeling to perform mediation analyses. Mediation analyses are analyses to evaluate whether a variable is a factor in the causal chain, referred to as an intermediate factor. Results: In total 254 patients were included, of whom 111 patients were LGG patients and 143 were HGG patients. The most frequently impaired domain was memory (37.8% ≤-2 SD) in HGG and attention and executive functioning in LGG (33.3≤-1.5 SD). We confirmed the significant association between different cognitive domains and survival. These associations could not be explained by one of the aforementioned intermediate factors. Conclusions: This suggests that other mechanisms should be involved in the relation between cognition and survival. Hypothetically, cognitive functioning can act as a marker for diffuse infiltration of the tumor or cognitive functioning and survival could be determined by overlapping germline and somatic tumoral molecular-genetic factors.

Conventional MRI Criteria to Differentiate Progressive Disease From Treatment-Induced Effects in High-Grade (WHO Grade 3-4) Gliomas.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Posttreatment radiologic deterioration of an irradiated high-grade (WHO grade 3-4) glioma (HGG) may be the result of true progressive disease or treatment-induced effects (TIE). Differentiation between these entities is of great importance but remains a diagnostic challenge. This study assesses the diagnostic value of conventional MRI characteristics to differentiate progressive disease from TIE in HGGs. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, consecutive cohort study, we included adults with a HGG who were treated with (chemo-)radiotherapy and subsequently developed a new or increasing contrast-enhancing lesion on conventional follow-up MRI. TIE and progressive disease were defined radiologically as stable/decreased for ≥6 weeks or Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology progression and histologically as TIE without viable tumor or progressive disease. Two neuroradiologists assessed 21 preselected MRI characteristics of the progressive lesions. The statistical analysis included logistic regression to develop a full multivariable model, a diagnostic model with model reduction, and a Cohen kappa interrater reliability (IRR) coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 210 patients (median age 61 years, interquartile range 54-68, 189 male) with 284 lesions were included, of whom 141 (50%) had progressive disease. Median time to progressive disease was 2 (0.7-6.1) and to TIE 0.9 (0.7-3.5) months after radiotherapy. After multivariable modeling and model reduction, the following determinants prevailed: radiation dose (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.93), longer time to progression (TTP; OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.84-6.88), marginal enhancement (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.09-3.83), soap bubble enhancement (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.39-4.98), and isointense apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) signal (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.24). ORs >1 indicate higher odds of progressive disease. The Hosmer & Lemeshow test showed good calibration (p = 0.947) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.722 (95% CI 0.66-0.78). In the glioblastoma subgroup, TTP, marginal enhancement, and ADC signal were significant. IRR analysis between neuroradiologists revealed moderate to near perfect agreement for the predictive items but poor agreement for others. DISCUSSION: Several characteristics from conventional MRI are significant predictors for the discrimination between progressive disease and TIE. However, IRR was variable. Conventional MRI characteristics from this study should be incorporated into a multimodal diagnostic model with advanced imaging techniques. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that in patients with irradiated HGGs, radiation dose, longer TTP, marginal enhancement, soap bubble enhancement, and isointense ADC signal distinguish progressive disease from TIE.