Physical activity and glioma: a case-control study with follow-up for survival.

PURPOSE: High-grade disease accounts for ~ 70% of all glioma, and has a high mortality rate. Few modifiable exposures are known to be related to glioma risk or mortality. METHODS: We examined associations between lifetime physical activity and physical activity at different ages (15-18 years, 19-29 years, 30-39 years, last 10 years) with the risk of glioma diagnosis, using data from a hospital-based family case-control study (495 cases; 371 controls). We followed up cases over a median of 25 months to examine whether physical activity was associated with all-cause mortality. Physical activity and potential confounders were assessed by self-administered questionnaire. We examined associations between physical activity (metabolic equivalent [MET]-h/wk) and glioma risk using unconditional logistic regression and with all-cause mortality in cases using Cox regression. RESULTS: We noted a reduced risk of glioma for the highest (≥ 47 MET-h/wk) versus lowest (< 24 METh/wk) category of physical activity for lifetime activity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.89) and at 15-18 years (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.83). We did not observe any association between physical activity and all-cause mortality (HR for lifetime physical activity = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.64-1.29). CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with previous research that suggested physical activity during adolescence might be protective against glioma. Engaging in physical activity during adolescence has many health benefits; this health behavior may also offer protection against glioma.

Implementation and evaluation of a national quality improvement initiative in cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, a Canadian federally sponsored organisation, initiated a national multijurisdictional quality improvement (QI) initiative to maximise the use of synoptic data to drive cancer system improvements, known as the Evidence for Surgical Synoptic Quality Improvement Programme. The goal of our study was to evaluate the outcomes, determinants and learning of this nationally led initiative across six jurisdictions in Canada, integrating a mix of cancer surgery disease sites and clinicians. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation (surveys, semistructured interviews and focus groups) of this initiative was focused on the ability of each jurisdiction to use synoptic reporting data to successfully implement and sustain QI projects to beyond the completion of the initiative and the lessons learnt in the process. Resources provided to the jurisdictions included operational funding, training in QI methodology, national forums, expert coaches, and ad hoc monitoring and support. The programme emphasised foundational concepts of the QI process including data literacy, audit and feedback reports, communities of practice (CoP) and positive deviance methodology. RESULTS: 101 CoP meetings were held and 337 clinicians received feedback reports. There were 23 projects, and 22 of 23 (95%) showed improvements with 15 of 23 (65%) achieving the proposed targets. Enablers of effective data utilisation/feedback reports for QI included the need for clinicians to trust the data, have comparative data for feedback, and the engagement of both data scientists and clinicians in designing feedback reports. Enablers of sustainability of QI within each jurisdiction included QI training for clinicians, the ability to continue CoP meetings, executive and broad stakeholder engagement, and the ability to use pre-existing organisational infrastructures and processes. Barriers to continue QI work included lack of funding for core team members, lack of automated data collection processes and lack of clinician incentives (financial and other). CONCLUSION: Success and sustainability in data-driven QI in cancer surgery require skills in QI methodology, data literacy and feedback, dedicated supportive personnel and an environment that promotes the process of collective learning and shared accountability. Building these capabilities in jurisdictional teams, tailoring interventions to facility contexts and strong leadership engagement will create the capacity for continued success in QI for cancer surgery.

Unmet needs in people with high-grade glioma: defining criteria for stepped care intervention.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to define levels of unmet supportive care needs in people with primary brain tumor and to reach expert consensus on feasibility of addressing patients' needs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of people diagnosed with high-grade glioma (n = 116) who completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form during adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Participants were allocated to 1 of 3 categories: no need ("no need" for help on all items), low need ("low need" for help on at least 1 item, but no "moderate" or "high" need), or moderate/high need (at least 1 "moderate" or "high" need indicated). Clinical capacity to respond to the proportion of patients needing to be prioritized was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 13% (n = 5) were categorized as no need, 23% (n = 27) low need, and 64% (n = 74) moderate/high need. At least 1 moderate/high need was reported in the physical and daily living domain (42%) and the psychological (34%) domain. In recognition of health system capacity, the moderate/high need category was modified to distinguish between moderate need ("moderate" need indicated for at least 1 item but "high" need was not selected for any item) and high need (at least 1 "high" need indicated). Results revealed 24% (n = 28) moderate need and 40% (n = 46) high need. Those categorized as high need indicated needing assistance navigating the health system and information. CONCLUSIONS: Using four step allocations resulted in 40% of patients indicating high need. Categories may facilitate appropriate triaging and guide stepped models of healthcare delivery.

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

OBJECTIVES: Symptoms of raised intracranial pressure (ICP) in recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG) generally require corticosteroid treatment, often causing toxicity with variable effects on ICP symptoms. Acetazolamide reduces ICP when used in other clinical non-cancer settings. The aim of the study was to explore whether the addition of oral acetazolamide enables safe dexamethasone dose reduction in management of raised ICP in recurrent HGG. METHODS: Participants had recurrent HGG with any of dexamethasone recommencement, dose increase or dependency; prior/current bevacizumab was an exclusion. Eligible participants were randomised 1:1 to acetazolamide or placebo for 8 weeks. Standardised protocols were used for dexamethasone dosing, with planned dose decrease from day 5 once ICP symptoms were stable. The primary endpoint was a composite of dexamethasone dose reduction and stable Karnofsky Performance Status Secondary endpoints included toxicity and feasibility. RESULTS: Thirty participants (15 per group) were enrolled (mean age 58 years) from seven Australian sites. The mean baseline dexamethasone dose was 6.2 mg. Mean duration on study treatment was 38 days (placebo group) and 31 days (acetazolamide group) with nine participants (30%) completing all study treatments (six placebo, three acetazolamide). Study withdrawal was due to adverse events (n=6; one placebo, five acetazolamide) and disease progression (n=6 (three per arm)). Four participants (13%) (two per arm) were stable responders. Ten participants experienced a total of 13 serious adverse events (acetazolamide arm: five participants (33%), six events, two related). CONCLUSIONS: The study closed early due to poor accrual and increasing availability of bevacizumab. The addition of acetazolamide did not facilitate dexamethasone reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001072505.

[18F]-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) in glioblastoma (FIG) TROG 18.06 study: protocol for a prospective, multicentre PET/CT trial.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma is the most common aggressive primary central nervous system cancer in adults characterised by uniformly poor survival. Despite maximal safe resection and postoperative radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemotherapy, tumours inevitably recur. Imaging with O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) has the potential to impact adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) planning, distinguish between treatment-induced pseudoprogression versus tumour progression as well as prognostication. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FET-PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) study is a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, phase II study across 10 Australian sites and will enrol up to 210 adults aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. FET-PET will be performed at up to three time points: (1) following initial surgery and prior to commencement of chemoradiation (FET-PET1); (2) 4 weeks following concurrent chemoradiation (FET-PET2); and (3) within 14 days of suspected clinical and/or radiological progression on MRI (performed at the time of clinical suspicion of tumour recurrence) (FET-PET3). The co-primary outcomes are: (1) to investigate how FET-PET versus standard MRI impacts RT volume delineation and (2) to determine the accuracy and management impact of FET-PET in distinguishing pseudoprogression from true tumour progression. The secondary outcomes are: (1) to investigate the relationships between FET-PET parameters (including dynamic uptake, tumour to background ratio, metabolic tumour volume) and progression-free survival and overall survival; (2) to assess the change in blood and tissue biomarkers determined by serum assay when comparing FET-PET data acquired prior to chemoradiation with other prognostic markers, looking at the relationships of FET-PET versus MRI-determined site/s of progressive disease post chemotherapy treatment with MRI and FET-PET imaging; and (3) to estimate the health economic impact of incorporating FET-PET into glioblastoma management and in the assessment of post-treatment pseudoprogression or recurrence/true progression. Exploratory outcomes include the correlation of multimodal imaging, blood and tumour biomarker analyses with patterns of failure and survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol V.2.0 dated 20 November 2020 has been approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Austin Health, Victoria). Other clinical sites will provide oversight through local governance processes, including obtaining informed consent from suitable participants. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results of the FIG study (TROG 18.06) will be disseminated via relevant scientific and consumer forums and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR ACTRN12619001735145.

Barriers and potential solutions to international collaboration in neuro-oncology clinical trials: Challenges from the Australian perspective.

AIM: The neuro-oncology community in Australia is well positioned to collaborate internationally, with a motivated trials group, strong regulatory bodies and an attractive fiscal environment. We sought to identify gaps in the Australian neuro-oncology clinical trials landscape and describe strategies to increase international trial access in Australia. METHODS: We searched clinical trial registries to identify active adult primary brain cancer trials. We compared the participation rate and phase of these trials between tumour types and countries. A survey was distributed to the Cooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology membership to identify barriers and solutions to effective international collaboration. RESULTS: Globally, 307 trials for adult primary brain cancers were identified. These included 50% pharmaceutical agents, 18% cellular therapies and 9% radiation therapy. Twelve adult primary brain cancer trials were actively recruiting in Australia at the time the survey was sent out. There were more early phase brain cancer trials (34%) compared with colorectal and breast cancer (21% and 24%, respectively). In Australia, 92% of brain cancer trials were involving pharmaceutical agents. The most commonly cited barrier was lack of funding for international trials (86%) and insufficient research time (75%). High ranking solutions included increasing the availability of funding for international trials and creating opportunities to develop personal relationships with collaborators. Accreditation of clinical research key performance indicators into practice (88%) and hospital accreditation (73%) also ranked highly. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in international research in Australia could be improved by embedding clinical research targets into institutional funding, provision of funding for early phase studies and streamlining mutual ethics schemes.

What matters for people with brain cancer? Selecting clinical quality indicators for an Australian Brain Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: The goal of a clinical quality registry is to deliver immediate gains in survival and quality of life by delivering timely feedback to practitioners, thereby ensuring every patient receives the best existing treatment. We are developing an Australian Brain Cancer Registry (ABCR) to identify, describe, and measure the impact of the variation and gaps in brain cancer care from the time of diagnosis to the end of life. METHODS: To determine a set of clinical quality indicators (CQIs) for the ABCR, a database and internet search were used to identify relevant guidelines, which were then assessed for quality using the AGREE II Global Rating Scale. Potential indicators were extracted from 21 clinical guidelines, ranked using a modified Delphi process completed in 2 rounds by a panel of experts and other stakeholders, and refined by a multidisciplinary Working Group. RESULTS: Nineteen key quality reporting domains were chosen, specified by 57 CQIs detailing the specific inclusion and outcome characteristics to be reported. CONCLUSION: The selected CQIs will form the basis for the ABCR, provide a framework for achievable data collection, and specify best practices for patients and health care providers, with a view to improving care for brain cancer patients. To our knowledge, the systematic and comprehensive approach we have taken is a world first in selecting the reporting specifications for a brain cancer clinical registry.

Implementing and Sustaining Early Cancer Diagnosis Initiatives in Canada: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The interval between suspected cancer and diagnosis for symptomatic patients is often fragmented, leading to diagnosis delays and increased patient stress. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining current initiatives across Canada that optimize early cancer diagnosis, with particular relevance for symptomatic patients. METHODS: The national study included a document review and key informant interviews with purposefully recruited participants. Data were analyzed by two researchers using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants from eight provinces participated in key informant interviews and reported on 17 early cancer diagnosis initiatives. Most initiatives (88%) were in early phases of implementation. Two patient-facing and eight provider/organization barriers to implementation (e.g., lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources) and five facilitators for implementation and sustainability were identified. Opportunities to improve early cancer diagnosis initiatives included building relationships with stakeholders, co-creating initiatives, developing initiatives for Indigenous and underserved populations, optimizing efficiency and sustainability, and standardizing metrics to evaluate impact. CONCLUSION: Early cancer diagnosis initiatives in Canada are in early implementation phases. Lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources pose a challenge to sustainability. We present opportunities for funders and policymakers to optimize the use and potential impact of early cancer diagnosis initiatives.

Interventions to improve early cancer diagnosis of symptomatic individuals: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. DESIGN: A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021. ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: Study participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We summarised findings graphically and descriptively. RESULTS: From 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

A randomized phase II trial of veliparib, radiotherapy, and temozolomide in patients with unmethylated MGMT glioblastoma: the VERTU study.

BACKGROUND: Temozolomide offers minimal benefit in patients with glioblastoma with unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status, hence, the need for novel therapies. This study evaluated whether veliparib, a brain-penetrant poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, acts synergistically with radiation and temozolomide. METHODS: VERTU was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and MGMT-unmethylated promotor status. The experimental arm consisted of veliparib and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant veliparib and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to extend the progression-free survival rate at six months (PFS-6m) in the experimental arm. RESULTS: A total of 125 participants were enrolled, with 84 in the experimental arm and 41 in the standard arm. The median age was 61 years, 70% were male, 59% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, and 87% underwent macroscopic resection. PFS-6m was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36%-57%) in the experimental arm and 31% (95% CI: 18%-46%) in the standard arm. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI: 11.4-14.5 months) in the experimental arm and 12.8 months (95% CI: 9.5-15.8 months) in the standard arm. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new safety signals. CONCLUSION: The veliparib-containing regimen was feasible and well tolerated. However, there was insufficient evidence of clinical benefit in this population. Further information from correlative translational work and other trials of PARP inhibitors in glioblastoma are still awaited.

Driving innovation through collaboration: development of clinical annotation datasets for brain cancer biobanking.

BACKGROUND: A key component of cancer research is the availability of clinical samples with appropriately annotated clinical data. Biobanks facilitate research by collecting/storing various types of clinical samples for research. Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia (BCBA) was established to facilitate the networking of brain cancer biobanking operations Australia-wide. Maximizing biospecimen utility in a networked biobanking environment requires the standardization of procedures and data across different sites. The aim of this research was to scope and develop a recommended clinical annotation dataset both for pediatric and adult brain cancer biobanks. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group consisting of members from the BCBA Consortium was established to develop clinical dataset recommendations for brain cancer biobanks. A literature search was undertaken to identify any published clinical dataset recommendations for brain cancer biobanks. An audit of data items collected and stored by BCBA member biobanks was also conducted to survey current clinical data collection practices across the BCBA network. RESULTS: BCBA has developed a clinical annotation dataset recommendation for pediatric and adult brain cancer biobanks. The clinical dataset recommendation has 5 clinical data categories: demographic, clinical and radiological diagnosis and surgery, neuropathological diagnosis, patient treatment, and patient follow-up. The data fields have been categorized into 1 of 3 tiers; essential, preferred, and comprehensive. This enables biobanks and researchers to prioritize appropriately where resources are limited. CONCLUSION: This dataset can be used to guide the integration of data from multiple existing biobanks for research studies and for planning prospective brain cancer biobanking activities.