Patient-reported outcomes in neuro-oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide up-to-date evidence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in neuro-oncology, with a focus on the core constructs of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the use of PROs in clinical trials and clinical practice.[Supplemental Digital Content: Video Abstract PROs in Neuro-Oncology.mov]. RECENT FINDINGS: PROs are gaining importance in brain tumor research and medical care. For patients with a brain tumor, core PRO constructs are pain, difficulty communicating, perceived cognition, seizures, symptomatic adverse events, physical functioning and role and social functioning, which are assessed through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Initiatives have been taken to improve the reliability and robustness of PRO data, including standardization of items included in clinical trial protocols (the SPIRIT-PRO extension) and formulation of PRO priority objectives for use in clinical trials (the SISAQOL-Innovative Medicines Initiative). In brain tumor patients with cognitive impairment, caregiver-reported outcomes may complement or replace PROs to increase accuracy. The next key challenge will be to widely implement PROs and apply PRO data in clinical practice to benefit patients with brain tumors. SUMMARY: PROs are clinically relevant endpoints providing information only known by the patient. Standardization of the use of PROs in clinical trials and wide implementation in clinical practice is needed to improve HRQoL of brain tumor patients.

Influence of arterial transit time delays on the differentiation between tumor progression and pseudoprogression in glioblastoma by arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging.

Arterial spin labeling (ASL) and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown potential for differentiating tumor progression from pseudoprogression. For pseudocontinuous ASL with a single postlabeling delay, the presence of delayed arterial transit times (ATTs) could affect the evaluation of ASL-MRI perfusion data. In this study, the influence of ATT artifacts on the perfusion assessment and differentiation between tumor progression and pseudoprogression were studied. This study comprised 66 adult patients (mean age 60 ± 13 years; 40 males) with a histologically confirmed glioblastoma who received postoperative radio (chemo)therapy. ASL-MRI and DSC-MRI scans were acquired at 3 months postradiotherapy as part of the standard clinical routine. These scans were visually scored regarding (i) the severity of ATT artifacts (%) on the ASL-MRI scans only, scored by two neuroradiologists; (ii) perfusion of the enhancing tumor lesion; and (iii) radiological evaluation of tumor progression versus pseudoprogression by one neuroradiologist. The final outcome was based on combined clinical and radiological follow-up until 9 months postradiotherapy. ATT artifacts were identified in all patients based on the mean scores of two raters. A significant difference between the radiological evaluation of ASL-MRI and DSC-MRI was observed only for ASL images with moderate ATT severity (30%-65%). The perfusion assessment showed ASL-MRI tending more towards hyperperfusion than DSC-MRI in the case of moderate ATT artifacts. In addition, there was a significant difference between the prediction of tumor progression with ASL-MRI and the final outcome in the case of severe ATT artifacts (McNemar test, p = 0.041). Despite using ASL imaging parameters close to the recommended settings, ATT artifacts frequently occur in patients with treated brain tumors. Those artifacts could hinder the radiological evaluation of ASL-MRI data and the detection of true disease progression, potentially affecting treatment decisions for patients with glioblastoma.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

First-line levetiracetam versus enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication in glioma patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to directly compare the effectiveness of first-line monotherapy levetiracetam (LEV) versus enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs) in glioma patients. METHODS: In this nationwide retrospective observational cohort study, Grade 2-4 glioma patients were included, with a maximum duration of follow-up of 36 months. Primary outcome was antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment failure for any reason, and secondary outcomes were treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures and due to adverse effects. For estimation of the association between ASM treatment and ASM treatment failure, multivariate cause-specific cox proportional hazard models were estimated, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: In the original cohort, a total of 808 brain tumor patients with epilepsy were included, of whom 109 glioma patients were prescribed first-line LEV and 183 glioma patients first-line EIASMs. The EIASM group had a significantly higher risk of treatment failure for any reason compared to LEV (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-2.75, p = .005). Treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures did not differ significantly between EIASMs and LEV (aHR = 1.32, 95% CI = .78-2.25, p = .300), but treatment failure due to adverse effects differed significantly (aHR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.89-12.55, p = .001). SIGNIFICANCE: In this study, it was demonstrated that LEV had a significantly better effectiveness (i.e., less ASM treatment failure for any reason or due to adverse effects) compared to EIASMs, supporting the current neuro-oncology guideline recommendations to avoid EIASMs in glioma patients.

Impact of timing of antiseizure medication withdrawal on seizure recurrence in glioma patients: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Withdrawal of antiseizure medication treatment (ASM) can be considered after completion of antitumour treatment in glioma patients who no longer suffer from seizures. We compared the risk for recurrent seizures after ASM withdrawal between patients with short-term, medium-term versus long-term seizure freedom after antitumour treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, the primary outcome was time to recurrent seizure, from the starting date of no ASM treatment up to 36 months follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the effect of risk factors on time to recurrent seizure. Stratification was done with information known at baseline. Short-term seizure freedom was defined as ≥ 3 months, but < 12 months; medium-term as 12-24 months; and long-term as ≥ 24 months seizure freedom from the date of last antitumour treatment. RESULTS: This study comprised of 109 patients; 31% (34/109) were in the short-term, 29% (32/109) in the medium-term, and 39% (43/109) in the long-term group. A recurrent seizure was experienced by 47% (16/34) of the patients in the short-term, 31% (10/32) in the medium-term, and 44% (19/43) in the long-term group. Seizure recurrence risk was similar between patients in the short-term group as compared to the medium-term (cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.65 [95%CI = 0.29-1.46]) and long-term group (cause-specific aHR = 1.04 [95%CI = 0.52-2.09]). CONCLUSIONS: Seizure recurrence risk is relatively similar between patients with short-term, medium-term, and long-term seizure freedom after completion of antitumour treatment.

A qualitative study on the healthcare experiences of adolescents and young adults (AYA) with an uncertain or poor cancer prognosis.

PURPOSE: Treatment advancements have improved life expectancy for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with an uncertain and/or poor cancer prognosis (UPCP) and change clinical practice. This improved survival requires a different approach and specific expertise to meet the needs of this group. The aim of this study is to explore the health care experiences of AYAs with a UPCP. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and elements of the grounded theory by Corbin and Strauss. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 46 AYAs with a UPCP. They were on average 33.4 years old (age range 23-44), and most of them were woman (63%). Additionally, five AYAs with a UPCP participated as AYA research partners in two focus groups. They were on average 31.8 years old and four of them were woman. AYAs with a UPCP reported four pillars for a satisfied healthcare experience: (1) trust, (2) tailored communication, (3) holistic empathic open attitude, and (4) care being offered (pro-)actively. They reported both optimal and suboptimal experiences about distrust based on a delay in diagnostic trajectory, lack of tailored communication and discussion of sensitive topics, preference for a holistic approach, and struggles with finding the way to get additional healthcare support. CONCLUSION: For AYAs with a UPCP, it is important that both age-specific issues and issues related to the UPCP are understood and addressed; however, this seems not yet optimally implemented in clinical practice. This emphasizes the importance of providing this patient group with tailored care incorporating both aspects. Healthcare professionals need to be supported with training and tools to understand the healthcare needs of AYAs with a UPCP. AYAs can be empowered to take more control over their own healthcare needs.

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

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

Management of epilepsy in brain tumor patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A concise review of recent findings in brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE), with focus on the effect of antitumor treatment on seizure control and the management of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). RECENT FINDINGS: Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation and its active metabolite d -2-hydroxyglutarate seem important contributing factors to epileptogenesis in BTRE. A beneficial effect of antitumor treatment (i.e. surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) on seizure control has mainly been demonstrated in low-grade glioma. AED prophylaxis in seizure-naïve BTRE patients is not recommended, but AED treatment should be initiated after a first seizure has occurred. Comparative efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are currently lacking, but second-generation AED levetiracetam seems the preferred choice in BTRE. Levetiracetam lacks significant drug-drug interactions, has shown favorable efficacy compared to valproic acid in BTRE, generally causes no hematological or neurocognitive functioning adverse effects, but caution should be exercised with regard to psychiatric adverse effects. Potential add-on AEDs in case of uncontrolled seizures include lacosamide, perampanel, and valproic acid. Ultimately, in the end-of-life phase when oral intake of medication is hampered, benzodiazepines via nonoral administration routes are potential alternatives. SUMMARY: Management of seizures in BTRE is complex and with currently available evidence levetiracetam seems the preferred choice. Comparative efficacy RCTs in BTRE are warranted.

Is the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale appropriate as an initial screening measure to identify brain tumour patients who may possibly have a mood disorder?

BACKGROUND: Screening glioma patients regularly for possible mood disorders may facilitate early identification and referral of patients at risk. This study evaluated if the EORTC QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning (EF) scale could be used as an initial screening measure to identify patients possibly having a mood disorder. METHODS: EORTC QLQ-C30 EF and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores were collected as part of a study assessing the impact of timing of patient-reported outcome assessments on actual health-related quality of life outcomes (N = 99). Spearman correlations and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine the association between the EF and HADS (sub)scales. Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were performed to determine optimal cut-off EF scores to identify patients possibly having a mood disorder (i.e. HADS subscale score ≥8 points). RESULTS: EF and HADS (sub)scales correlated moderately (HADS-A: r = -0.65; HADS-D: r = -0.52). Significant EF score differences were found between patients with HADS ≥8 versus <8 points (HADS-A: mean difference (MD) = 32 and HADS-D: MD = 23). The EF scale had excellent (HADS-A; AUC = 0.88) and borderline excellent (HADS-D; AUC = 0.78) distinguishing capabilities. A statistically optimal (EF score <80) and a most inclusive (sensitivity of 100%, corresponding to an EF score <97) EF cut-off score correctly identified 88.0% and 96.0% of patients with a possible mood disorder, respectively. CONCLUSION: EORTC QLQ-C30 EF scale seems to be an appropriate screening measure to identify glioma patients possibly having a mood disorder in need of further assessment.

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals' preferences for learning content and methods.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users' educational needs regarding content and learning methods. METHODS: The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings. RESULTS: Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive). CONCLUSION: Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

Neurocognitive impairment and patient-proxy agreement on health-related quality of life evaluations in recurrent high-grade glioma patients.

PURPOSE: The rate of missing data on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in brain tumor clinical trials is particularly high over time. One solution to this issue is the use of proxy (i.e., partner, relative, informal caregiver) ratings in lieu of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this study we investigated patient-proxy agreement on HRQOL outcomes in high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. METHODS: Generic and disease-specific HRQOL were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 in a sample of 501 patient-proxy dyads participating in EORTC trials 26101 and 26091. Patients were classified as impaired or intact, based on their neurocognitive performance. The level of patient-proxy agreement was measured using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and the Bland-Altman limit of agreement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences between patients' and proxies' HRQOL. RESULTS: Patient-proxy agreement in all HGG patients (N = 501) ranged from 0.082 to 0.460. Only 18.8% of all patients were neurocognitively intact. Lin's CCC ranged from 0.088 to 0.455 in cognitively impaired patients and their proxies and from 0.027 to 0.538 in cognitively intact patients and their proxies. CONCLUSION: While patient-proxy agreement on health-related quality of life outcomes is somewhat higher in cognitively intact patients, agreement in high-grade glioma patients is low in general. In light of these findings, we suggest to cautiously consider the use of proxy's evaluation in lieu of patient-reported outcomes, regardless of patient's neurocognitive status.

Non-IDH1-R132H IDH1/2 mutations are associated with increased DNA methylation and improved survival in astrocytomas, compared to IDH1-R132H mutations.

Somatic mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase genes IDH1 and IDH2 occur at high frequency in several tumour types. Even though these mutations are confined to distinct hotspots, we show that gliomas are the only tumour type with an exceptionally high percentage of IDH1R132H mutations. Patients harbouring IDH1R132H mutated tumours have lower levels of genome-wide DNA-methylation, and an associated increased gene expression, compared to tumours with other IDH1/2 mutations ("non-R132H IDH1/2 mutations"). This reduced methylation is seen in multiple tumour types and thus appears independent of the site of origin. For 1p/19q non-codeleted glioma (astrocytoma) patients, we show that this difference is clinically relevant: in samples of the randomised phase III CATNON trial, patients harbouring tumours with IDH mutations other than IDH1R132H have a better outcome (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI [0.24, 0.71], p = 0.0013). Such non-R132H IDH1/2-mutated tumours also had a significantly lower proportion of tumours assigned to prognostically poor DNA-methylation classes (p < 0.001). IDH mutation-type was independent in a multivariable model containing known clinical and molecular prognostic factors. To confirm these observations, we validated the prognostic effect of IDH mutation type on a large independent dataset. The observation that non-R132H IDH1/2-mutated astrocytomas have a more favourable prognosis than their IDH1R132H mutated counterpart indicates that not all IDH-mutations are identical. This difference is clinically relevant and should be taken into account for patient prognostication.

Advances in the management of glioblastoma.

Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common and most malignant primary brain tumour in adults. Despite much effort, gold standard therapy has not changed since the introduction of adjuvant temozolomide in 2005 and prognosis remains poor. Despite this, there has been significant improvement in the surgical technology and technique, that has allowed for increased rates of safe maximal resection of the tumour. In addition, our increased knowledge of the biology of GB has revealed more potential targets, especially in the field of immunotherapy, which has been successful in revolutionising treatment of other cancers. We review the current best practice for the treatment of GB and explore some of the more recent advances in GB management from both a surgical and molecular therapeutic perspective.

First-line antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients with epilepsy: Levetiracetam vs valproic acid.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at estimating the cumulative incidence of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment failure of first-line monotherapy levetiracetam vs valproic acid in glioma patients with epilepsy. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, a competing risks model was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from AED treatment initiation, for the two AEDs with death as a competing event. Patients were matched on baseline covariates potentially related to treatment assignment and outcomes of interest according to the nearest neighbor propensity score matching technique. Maximum duration of follow-up was 36 months. RESULTS: In total, 776 patients using levetiracetam and 659 using valproic acid were identified. Matching resulted in two equal groups of 429 patients, with similar covariate distribution. The cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 33% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29%-38%] vs 50% [95% CI 45%-55%]; P < .001). When looking at specific reasons of treatment failure, treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 16% [95% CI 12%-19%] vs 28% [95% CI 23%-32%]; P < 0.001), but no differences were found for treatment failure due to adverse effects (12 months: 14% [95% CI 11%-18%] vs 15% [95% CI 11%-18%]; P = .636). SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggest that levetiracetam may have favorable efficacy compared to valproic acid, whereas level of toxicity seems similar. Therefore, levetiracetam seems to be the preferred choice for first-line AED treatment in patients with glioma.

Effect of antiepileptic drugs in glioma patients on self-reported depression, anxiety, and cognitive complaints.

INTRODUCTION: AEDs have been associated with depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment, all frequent complications of glioma and its subsequent treatment, with considerable morbidity and an adverse effect on health-related quality of life. This study aimed to determine the independent association between AED use and self-reported depression, anxiety, and subjective cognitive impairment in glioma patients. METHODS: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, depression and anxiety were assessed with the HADS and subjective cognitive impairment was assessed with the MOS-CFS. Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed on all potential confounding predictor variables. Potential confounders were included in the multivariable analyses if p-value < 0.1, to evaluate whether use of AEDs was independently related to depression, anxiety, and/or subjective cognitive impairment. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were included. Prevalence of depression differed significantly between patients not using (10%) and using AEDs (21%, unadjusted Odds Ratio [uOR] = 2.29 [95%CI 1.05-4.97], p = 0.037), but after correction for confounders the statistical significant difference was no longer apparent (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.94 [95%CI 0.83-4.50], p = 0.125). Prevalences of anxiety (aOR = 1.17 [95%CI 0.59-2.29], p = 0.659) and subjective cognitive impairment (aOR = 0.83 [95%CI 0.34-2.04], p = 0.684) did not differ significantly before or after adjustment of confounders between patients not using (19% and 16%, respectively) and using AEDs (26% and 21%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate AED use was not independently associated with concurrent depression, anxiety, or subjective cognitive impairment in glioma patients. Alternative factors seem to have a greater contribution to the risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms in glioma patients.

The effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients: lamotrigine versus lacosamide.

PURPOSE: Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide. METHODS: In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2-4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity. RESULTS: We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26-51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20-41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46-1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide. CONCLUSION: Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.

eHealth cognitive rehabilitation for brain tumor patients: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation programs for brain tumor patients are not widely available, despite the high need. We aimed to evaluate the effects of a tablet-based cognitive rehabilitation program on cognitive performance, cognitive complaints, fatigue, and psychological distress in primary brain tumor patients following neurosurgery. Also, attrition, adherence and patient satisfaction with the program were evaluated. METHODS: Adults with presumed low-grade glioma and meningioma were recruited before surgery. Three months thereafter, participants were allocated to the intervention group or waiting-list control group using minimization. The 10-week eHealth app ReMind, based on the effective face-to-face intervention, consisted of psychoeducation, strategy-training and attention retraining. Performance-based cognitive outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were assessed before surgery and 3, 6 and 12 months thereafter. Mean scores, percentages of cognitively impaired individuals and reliable change indices (RCIs) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Sixty-two out of 183 eligible patients were randomized. Of the people who declined, 56% reported that participation would to be too burdensome. All participants found a tablet-app suitable for delivery of cognitive rehabilitation and 90% rated the program as "good" or "excellent". Performance-based cognitive outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not significantly differ in group means over time nor RCIs between the intervention (final n = 20) and control group (final n = 25). CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment at this early stage was difficult, resulting in limited statistical power. No significant effects were demonstrated, while adherence and satisfaction with the eHealth program were good. In clinical practice, ReMind may be helpful, if timing would be adapted to patients' needs.

Determinants and predictors for the long-term disease burden of intracranial meningioma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Meningioma is a heterogeneous disease and patients may suffer from long-term tumor- and treatment-related sequelae. To help identify patients at risk for these late effects, we first assessed variables associated with impaired long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and impaired neurocognitive function on group level (i.e. determinants). Next, prediction models were developed to predict the risk for long-term neurocognitive or HRQoL impairment on individual patient-level. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional multicenter study with intracranial WHO grade I/II meningioma patients, in which HRQoL (Short-Form 36) and neurocognitive functioning (standardized test battery) were assessed. Multivariable regression models were used to assess determinants for these outcomes corrected for confounders, and to build prediction models, evaluated with C-statistics. RESULTS: Data from 190 patients were analyzed (median 9 years after intervention). Main determinants for poor HRQoL or impaired neurocognitive function were patients' sociodemographic characteristics, surgical complications, reoperation, radiotherapy, presence of edema, and a larger tumor diameter on last MRI. Prediction models with a moderate/good ability to discriminate between individual patients with and without impaired HRQoL (C-statistic 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and neurocognitive function (C-statistic 0.78, 95%CI 0.70 to 0.85) were built. Not all predictors (e.g. tumor location) within these models were also determinants. CONCLUSIONS: The identified determinants help clinicians to better understand long-term meningioma disease burden. Prediction models can help early identification of individual patients at risk for long-term neurocognitive or HRQoL impairment, facilitating tailored provision of information and allocation of scarce supportive care services to those most likely to benefit.

Development of an EORTC questionnaire measuring instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) in patients with brain tumours: phase I-III.

PURPOSE: Being able to function independently in society is an important aspect of quality of life. This ability goes beyond self-care, requires higher order cognitive functioning, and is typically measured with instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) questionnaires. Cognitive deficits are frequently observed in brain tumour patients, however, IADL is almost never assessed because no valid and reliable IADL measure is available for this patient group. Therefore, this measure is currently being developed. METHODS: This international multicentre study followed European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group module development guidelines. Three out of four phases are completed: phases (I) generation of items, (II) construction of the item list, and (III) pre-testing. This paper reports the item selection procedures and preliminary psychometric properties of the questionnaire. Brain tumour patients (gliomas and brain metastases), their informal caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) were included. RESULTS: Phase I (n = 44 patient-proxy dyads and 26 HCPs) generated 59 relevant and important activities. In phase II, the activities were converted into items. In phase III (n = 85 dyads), the 59 items were pre-tested. Item selection procedures resulted in 32 items. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a preliminary dimensional structure consisting of five scales with acceptable to excellent internal consistency (α = 0.73-0.94) and two single items. For three scales, patients with cognitive impairments had significantly more IADL problems than patients without impairments. CONCLUSION: A phase IV validation study is needed to confirm the psychometric properties of the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire in a larger international sample.

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

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