Canadian Consensus for Treatment of BRAF V600E Mutated Pediatric and AYA Gliomas.

Background: The treatment of BRAF V600E gliomas with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFis) and MEK inhibitors (MEKis) has been increasingly integrated into clinical practice for pediatric low-grade gliomas (PLGGs) and pediatric high-grade gliomas (HGGs). However, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best time to start targeted therapy, duration of treatment, and discontinuation of therapy. Given that no clinical trial has been able to address these critical questions, we developed a Canadian Consensus statement for the treatment of BRAF V600E mutated pediatric as well as adolescent and young adult (AYA) gliomas. Methods: Canadian neuro-oncologists were invited to participate in the development of this consensus. The consensus was discussed during monthly web-based national meetings, and the algorithms were revised until a consensus was achieved. Results: A total of 26 participants were involved in the development of the algorithms. Two treatment algorithms are proposed, one for the initiation of treatment and one for the discontinuation of treatment. We suggest that most patients with BRAF V600E gliomas should be treated with BRAFis ± MEKis upfront. Discontinuation of treatment can be considered in certain circumstances, and we suggest a slow wean. Conclusions: Based on expert consensus in Canada, we developed algorithms for treatment initiation of children and AYA with BRAF V600E gliomas as well as a discontinuation algorithm.

Impact of trametinib on the neuropsychological profile of NF1 patients.

PURPOSE: The use of trametinib in the treatment of pediatric low-grade gliomas (PLGG) and plexiform neurofibroma (PN) is being investigated in an ongoing multicenter phase II trial (NCT03363217). Preliminary data shows potential benefits with significant response in the majority of PLGG and PN and an overall good tolerance. Moreover, possible benefits of MEK inhibitor therapy on cognitive functioning in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) were recently shown which supports the need for further evaluation. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with NF1 (age range 3-19 years) enrolled in the phase II study of trametinib underwent a neurocognitive assessment at inclusion and at completion of the 72-week treatment. Age-appropriate Wechsler Intelligence Scales and the Trail Making Test (for children over 8 years old) were administered at each assessment. Paired t-tests and Reliable Change Index (RCI) analyses were performed to investigate change in neurocognitive outcomes. Regression analyses were used to investigate the contribution of age and baseline score in the prediction of change. RESULTS: Stable performance on neurocognitive tests was revealed at a group-level using paired t-tests. Clinically significant improvements were however found on specific indexes of the Wechsler intelligence scales and Trail Making Test, using RCI analyses. No significant impact of age on cognitive change was evidenced. However, lower initial cognitive performance was associated with increased odds of presenting clinically significant improvements on neurocognitive outcomes. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results show a potential positive effect of trametinib on cognition in patients with NF1. We observed significant improvements in processing speed, visuo-motor and verbal abilities. This study demonstrates the importance of including neuropsychological evaluations into clinical trial when using MEK inhibitors for patients with NF1.

MR Imaging of Pediatric Neuroblastoma: Is Gadolinium Enhancement Necessary for Evaluation of Image-Defined-Risk Factors?

Background: Pre-treatment stratification and outcomes of neuroblastoma patients often depend on the assessment of image-defined risk factors (IDRFs) on MR Imaging, usually using Gadolinium-contrast materials which are cautioned in pediatrics. We aimed to address whether gadolinium contrast-enhanced sequences are necessary to identify the presence/absence of IDRFs. Methods: Patients with neuroblastoma with MR imaging were retrospectively identified from 2005 to 2021. Ninety confirmed IDRFs were evaluated in 23 patients. Corresponding MR studies were anonymized, randomized, and independently evaluated by 3 fellowship-trained pediatric radiologists. Each radiologist assessed the studies twice. At the first reading, all enhanced sequences were omitted, while in the second reading, the full study with enhanced sequences were included. Consensus reading was obtained among readers. Inter- and intra-rater agreements using Kappa statistics (κ) as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of non-enhanced MR in assessing IDRFs with respect to enhanced MR were calculated. Results: There were substantial (ĸ: 0.64-0.73) intra-reader agreements, and moderate to substantial (ĸ: 0.57-0.62) inter-reader agreements among radiologists in identifying IDRFs using non-enhanced MR. Non-enhanced MR had a sensitivity of 87.8% (95% CI [79-94]), specificity of 93% (89-96), PPV of 82.3 (73-89), NPV of 95.4 (92-98), and accuracy of 91.6 (88-94) in identifying IDRFs. However, 5/23 patients (21.7%) had a change in staging with the inclusion of contrast sequences. Conclusion: Although contrast sequences have a role in IDRF assessment, the majority can be adequately assessed on MR without gadolinium-contrast enhancement. Validation in a larger cohort is an important next step.