Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study.

Background: Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution. Methods: A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified. Results: In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting. Conclusions: A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS.

Lifestyle coaching is feasible in fatigued brain tumor patients: A phase I/feasibility, multi-center, mixed-methods randomized controlled trial.

Background: There are no effective treatments for brain tumor-related fatigue. We studied the feasibility of two novel lifestyle coaching interventions in fatigued brain tumor patients. Methods: This phase I/feasibility multi-center RCT recruited patients with a clinically stable primary brain tumor and significant fatigue (mean Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI] score ≥ 4/10). Participants were randomized in a 1-1-1 allocation ratio to: Control (usual care); Health Coaching ("HC", an eight-week program targeting lifestyle behaviors); or HC plus Activation Coaching ("HC + AC", further targeting self-efficacy). The primary outcome was feasibility of recruitment and retention. Secondary outcomes were intervention acceptability, which was evaluated via qualitative interview, and safety. Exploratory quantitative outcomes were measured at baseline (T0), post-interventions (T1, 10 weeks), and endpoint (T2, 16 weeks). Results: n = 46 fatigued brain tumor patients (T0 BFI mean = 6.8/10) were recruited and 34 were retained to endpoint, establishing feasibility. Engagement with interventions was sustained over time. Qualitative interviews (n = 21) suggested that coaching interventions were broadly acceptable, although mediated by participant outlook and prior lifestyle. Coaching led to significant improvements in fatigue (improvement in BFI versus control at T1: HC=2.2 points [95% CI 0.6, 3.8], HC + AC = 1.8 [0.1, 3.4], Cohen's d [HC] = 1.9; improvement in FACIT-Fatigue: HC = 4.8 points [-3.7, 13.3]; HC + AC = 12 [3.5, 20.5], d [HC and AC] = 0.9). Coaching also improved depressive and mental health outcomes. Modeling suggested a potential limiting effect of higher baseline depressive symptoms. Conclusions: Lifestyle coaching interventions are feasible to deliver to fatigued brain tumor patients. They were manageable, acceptable, and safe, with preliminary evidence of benefit on fatigue and mental health outcomes. Larger trials of efficacy are justified.

Unmet needs and wish for support of family caregivers of primary brain tumor patients.

Background: Most primary brain tumor patients rely on family caregivers for support. Caregiving can be rewarding, but also leads to significant burden from unmet needs. We aimed to: (1) identify and characterize caregivers' unmet needs; (2) determine associations between unmet needs and wish for support; (3) evaluate acceptability of the Caregiver Needs Screen (CNS) and perceived feasibility in clinical practice. Methods: Family caregivers of primary brain tumor patients were recruited from outpatient clinics and asked to complete an adapted version of the CNS consisting of 33 common issues caregivers report (item scale 0-10), and the wish for support (yes/no). Participants ranked acceptability and feasibility (item scale 0-7; higher scores being positive) of the adapted CNS. Descriptive and non-parametric correlational analyses were applied. Results: Caregivers (N = 71) reported 1-33 unmet caregiving needs (M = 17.20, sd = 7.98) but did not always wish for support (range 0-28, M = 5.82, sd = 6.96). A weak correlation was found between total number of unmet needs and wish for support (r = 0.296, P = .014). Most distressing items were patients' changes in memory/concentration (M = 5.75, sd = 3.29), patients' fatigue (M = 5.58, sd = 3.43), and signs of disease progression (M = 5.23, sd = 3.15).Caregivers most often wished support with recognizing disease progression (N = 24), and least often with managing spiritual issues (N = 0). Caregivers evaluated acceptability and feasibility of the CNS tool positively (mean scores ranged 4.2-6.2). Conclusions: Family caregivers experience distress resulting from many neuro-oncology specific needs, but this is not directly related to wish for support. Family caregiver needs screening could be useful to tailor support to suit their preferences in clinical practice.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study.

INTRODUCTION: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236979.

Do neurocognitive impairments explain the differences between brain tumor patients and their proxies when assessing the patient's IADL?

Background: Neurocognitive impairments are common among brain tumor patients, and may impact patients' awareness of performance in instrumental activities in daily life (IADL). We examined differences between patient- and proxy-reported assessments of the patient's IADL, and whether the level of (dis)agreement is associated with neurocognitive impairments. Methods: Brain tumor patients and their proxies completed the phase 3 version of the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire measuring IADL, and patients completed six neurocognitive measures. Patient-proxy difference scores in IADL were compared between patients who were defined as neurocognitively impaired (≥2 neurocognitive measures ≥2.0 standard deviations below healthy controls) and non-neurocognitively impaired. With multinomial logistic regression analyses we examined if neurocognitive variables were independently associated with patient-proxy disagreement in IADL ratings. Results: Patients (n = 81) did not systematically (P < .01) rate IADL outcomes different than their proxies. Proxies did report more problems on 19/32 individual items and all five scales. This effect was more apparent in dyads with a neurocognitively impaired patient (n = 37), compared to dyads with non-neurocognitively impaired patients (n = 44). Multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that several neurocognitive variables (e.g., cognitive flexibility and verbal fluency) were independently associated with disagreement between patients and proxies on different scales. Conclusion: Neurocognitive deficits seem to play a role in the discrepancies between brain tumor patients and their proxies assessment of patient's level of IADL. Although replication of our results is needed, our findings suggests that caution is warranted in interpreting self-reported IADL by patients with neurocognitive impairment, and that such self-reports should be supplemented with proxy ratings.

Verbal fluency as a quick and simple tool to help in deciding when to refer patients with a possible brain tumour.

BACKGROUND: Patients with brain tumours often present with non-specific symptoms. Correctly identifying who to prioritise for urgent brain imaging is challenging. Brain tumours are amongst the commonest cancers diagnosed as an emergency presentation. A verbal fluency task (VFT) is a rapid triage test affected by disorders of executive function, language and processing speed. We tested whether a VFT could support identification of patients with a brain tumour. METHODS: This proof-of-concept study examined whether a VFT can help differentiate patients with a brain tumour from those with similar symptoms (i.e. headache) without a brain tumour. Two patient populations were recruited, (a) patients with known brain tumour, and (b) patients with headache referred for Direct-Access Computed-Tomography (DACT) from primary care with a suspicion of a brain tumour. Semantic and phonemic verbal fluency data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: 180 brain tumour patients and 90 DACT patients were recruited. Semantic verbal fluency score was significantly worse for patients with a brain tumour than those without (P < 0.001), whether comparing patients with headache, or patients without headache. Phonemic fluency showed a similar but weaker difference. Raw and incidence-weighted positive and negative predictive values were calculated. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated the potential role of adding semantic VFT score performance into clinical decision making to support triage of patients for urgent brain imaging. A relatively small improvement in the true positive rate in patients referred for DACT has the potential to increase the timeliness and efficiency of diagnosis and improve patient outcomes.

Identification of characteristics that determine behavioral and personality changes in adult glioma patients.

BACKGROUND: Glioma patients may experience behavioral and personality changes (BPC), negatively impacting their lives and that of their relatives. However, there is no clear definition of BPC for adult glioma patients, and here we aimed to determine which characteristics of BPC are relevant to include in this definition. METHODS: Possible characteristics of BPC were identified in the literature and presented to patients and (former) caregivers in an online survey launched via the International Brain Tumour Alliance. Participants had to rate the relevance of each presented characteristic of BPC, the three characteristics with the most impact on their lives, and possible missing characteristics. A cluster analysis and discussions with experts provided input to categorize characteristics and propose a definition for BPC. RESULTS: Completed surveys were obtained from 140 respondents; 35% patients, 50% caregivers, and 15% unknown. Of 49 proposed characteristics, 35 were reported as relevant by at least 25% (range: 7%-44%) of respondents. Patients and caregivers rated different characteristics as most important. Common characteristics included in the top 10 of both patients and caregivers were lack of motivation, change in being socially active, not able to finish things, and change in the level of irritation. No characteristics were reported missing by ≥5 respondents. Three categories of BPC were identified: (1) emotions, needs, and impulses (2) personality traits, and (3) poor judgement abilities. CONCLUSION: The work resulted in a proposed definition for BPC in glioma patients, for which endorsement from the neuro-oncological community will be sought. A next step is to identify or develop an instrument to evaluate BPC in glioma patients.

Systematic review on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in brain tumor studies: part of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. METHODS: A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. RESULTS: A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). CONCLUSION: Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

A Position Statement on the Utility of Interval Imaging in Standard of Care Brain Tumour Management: Defining the Evidence Gap and Opportunities for Future Research.

OBJECTIV E: To summarise current evidence for the utility of interval imaging in monitoring disease in adult brain tumours, and to develop a position for future evidence gathering while incorporating the application of data science and health economics. METHODS: Experts in 'interval imaging' (imaging at pre-planned time-points to assess tumour status); data science; health economics, trial management of adult brain tumours, and patient representatives convened in London, UK. The current evidence on the use of interval imaging for monitoring brain tumours was reviewed. To improve the evidence that interval imaging has a role in disease management, we discussed specific themes of data science, health economics, statistical considerations, patient and carer perspectives, and multi-centre study design. Suggestions for future studies aimed at filling knowledge gaps were discussed. RESULTS: Meningioma and glioma were identified as priorities for interval imaging utility analysis. The "monitoring biomarkers" most commonly used in adult brain tumour patients were standard structural MRI features. Interval imaging was commonly scheduled to provide reported imaging prior to planned, regular clinic visits. There is limited evidence relating interval imaging in the absence of clinical deterioration to management change that alters morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or resource use. Progression-free survival is confounded as an outcome measure when using structural MRI in glioma. Uncertainty from imaging causes distress for some patients and their caregivers, while for others it provides an important indicator of disease activity. Any study design that changes imaging regimens should consider the potential for influencing current or planned therapeutic trials, ensure that opportunity costs are measured, and capture indirect benefits and added value. CONCLUSION: Evidence for the value, and therefore utility, of regular interval imaging is currently lacking. Ongoing collaborative efforts will improve trial design and generate the evidence to optimise monitoring imaging biomarkers in standard of care brain tumour management.

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.

Economic evaluation of GPs' direct access to computed tomography for identification of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: When GPs suspect a brain tumour, a referral for specialist assessment and subsequent brain imaging is generally the first option. NICE has recommended that GPs have rapid direct access to brain imaging for adults with progressive sub-acute loss of central nervous function; however, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness model based on data from one region of the UK with direct access computed tomography (DACT), routine data from GP records and the literature, to explore whether unrestricted DACT for patients with suspected brain tumour might be more cost-effective than criteria-based DACT or no DACT. RESULTS: Although criteria-based DACT allows some patients without brain tumour to avoid imaging, our model suggests this may increase costs of diagnosis due to non-specific risk criteria and high costs of diagnosing or 'ruling out' brain tumours by other pathways. For patients diagnosed with tumours, differences in outcomes between the three diagnostic strategies are small. CONCLUSIONS: Unrestricted DACT may reduce diagnostic costs; however, the evidence is not strong and further controlled studies are required. Criteria-based access to CT for GPs might reduce demand for DACT, but imperfect sensitivity and specificity of current risk stratification mean that it will not necessarily be cost-effective.

Determining medical decision-making capacity in brain tumor patients: why and how?

BACKGROUND: Brain tumor patients are at high risk of impaired medical decision-making capacity (MDC), which can be ethically challenging because it limits their ability to give informed consent to medical treatments or participation in research. The European Association of Neuro-Oncology Palliative Care Multidisciplinary Task Force performed a systematic review to identify relevant evidence with respect to MDC that could be used to give recommendations on how to cope with reduced MDC in brain tumor patients. METHODS: A literature search in several electronic databases was conducted up to September 2019, including studies with brain tumor and other neurological patients. Information related to the following topics was extracted: tools to measure MDC, consent to treatment or research, predictive patient- and treatment-related factors, surrogate decision making, and interventions to improve MDC. RESULTS: A total of 138 articles were deemed eligible. Several structured capacity-assessment instruments are available to aid clinical decision making. These instruments revealed a high incidence of impaired MDC both in brain tumors and other neurological diseases for treatment- and research-related decisions. Incapacity appeared to be mostly determined by the level of cognitive impairment. Surrogate decision making should be considered in case a patient lacks capacity, ensuring that the patient's "best interests" and wishes are guaranteed. Several methods are available that may help to enhance patients' consent capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical recommendations on how to detect and manage reduced MDC in brain tumor patients were formulated, reflecting among others the timing of MDC assessments, methods to enhance patients' consent capacity, and alternative procedures, including surrogate consent.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide as add-on therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: Results from a prospective, noninterventional study in European clinical practice (VIBES).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide added to one or two antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE), and to evaluate patients' global impression of change and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, noninterventional study with a 6-month observation period (EP0045; NCT02276053). Eligible patients (≥16 years old) had active BTRE secondary to low-grade glioma (World Health Organization grade 1 and 2) and were receiving treatment with one or two AEDs at baseline. Lacosamide was initiated by the treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. Primary outcomes were 50% responders (≥50% reduction in focal seizure frequency from baseline) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at month 6. Secondary outcomes included seizure-free status and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at month 6, change in QoL (5-Level EuroQol-5 Dimension Quality of Life Assessment) and symptom outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor) from baseline to month 6, and Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month retention on lacosamide. Safety variables included adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: Patients were recruited from 24 sites in Europe. Ninety-three patients received lacosamide (mean [standard deviation] age = 44.5 [14.7] years; 50 [53.8%] male; median baseline focal seizure frequency = five seizures/28 days [range = 1-280]), of whom 79 (84.9%) completed the study. At 6 months, 66 of 86 (76.7%) patients were 50% responders and 30 of 86 (34.9%) were seizure-free. Improvements on PGIC were reported by 49 of 76 (64.5%) patients. Based on CGIC, 52 of 81 (64.2%) patients improved. QoL and symptoms outcome measures remained stable. Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month retention rate was 86.0% (N = 93). Fifteen (16.1%) patients reported ADRs; four (4.3%) had ADRs leading to discontinuation (N = 93). SIGNIFICANCE: Results of this prospective, noninterventional study suggest that add-on lacosamide is effective and generally well tolerated in patients with BTRE.

Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most effective and best-tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost-effectiveness associated with these approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro-oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined 'elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining 'elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta-analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self-care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair-wise meta-analyses or narrative syntheses. Seven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent. Overall survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low-certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low-certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only.   One trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population. We were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following. Quality of life Moderate-certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low. Progression-free survival High-certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate-certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low- or very low-certainty. Severe adverse events Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate-certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate-certainty evidence). Economic evidence There is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For elderly people with glioblastoma who are self-caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti-cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included.

The usefulness of symptoms alone or combined for general practitioners in considering the diagnosis of a brain tumour: a case-control study using the clinical practice research database (CPRD) (2000-2014).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of different symptoms, alone or combined, presented to primary care for an adult brain tumour diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study, using the data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2000-2014) from primary care consultations in the UK. METHOD: All presentations within 6 months of the index diagnosis date (cases) or equivalent (controls) were coded into 32 symptom groups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs) and positive likelihood ratios were calculated for symptoms and combinations of symptoms with headache and cognitive features. Diagnostic odds ratios were calculated using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for age group, sex and Charlson comorbidity. Stratified analyses were performed for age group, sex and whether the tumour was of primary or secondary origin. RESULTS: We included 8,184 cases and 28,110 controls. Seizure had the highest PPV of 1.6% (95% CI 1.4% to 1.7%) followed by weakness 1.5% (1.3 to 1.7) and confusion 1.4% (1.3 to 1.5). Combining headache with other symptoms increased the PPV. For example, headache plus combined cognitive symptoms PPV 7.2% (6.0 to 8.6); plus weakness 4.4% (3.2 to 6.2), compared with headache alone PPV 0.1%. The diagnostic ORs were generally larger for patients <70 years; this was most marked for confusion, seizure and visual symptoms. CONCLUSION: We found seizure, weakness and confusion had relatively higher predictive values than many other symptoms. Headache on its own was a weak predictor but this was enhanced when combined with other symptoms especially in younger patients. Clinicians need to actively search for other neurological symptoms such as cognitive problems.

Long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma.

BACKGROUND: Gliomas are brain tumours arising from glial cells with an annual incidence of 4 to 11 people per 100,000. In this review we focus on gliomas with low aggressive potential in the short term, i.e. low-grade gliomas. Most people with low-grade gliomas are treated with surgery and may receive radiotherapy thereafter. However, there is concern about the possible long-term effects of radiotherapy, especially on neurocognitive functioning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) compared with no radiotherapy, or different types of radiotherapy, among people with glioma (where 'long-term' is defined as at least two years after diagnosis); and to write a brief economic commentary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 16 February 2018 and updated the search on 14 November 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018 to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAS). Participants were aged 16 years and older with cerebral glioma other than glioblastoma. We included studies where patients in at least one treatment arm received radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, and where neurocognitive outcomes were assessed two or more years after treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of findings using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: The review includes nine studies: seven studies were of low-grade glioma and two were of grade 3 glioma. Altogether 2406 participants were involved but there was high sample attrition and outcome data were available for a minority of people at final study assessments. In seven of the nine studies, participants were recruited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which longer-term follow-up was undertaken in a subset of people that had survived without disease progression. There was moderate to high risk of bias in studies due to lack of blinding and high attrition, and in two observational studies there was high risk of selection bias. Paucity of data and risk of bias meant that evidence was of low to very low certainty. We were unable to combine results in meta-analysis due to diversity in interventions and outcomes.The studies examined the following five comparisons.Radiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatmentTwo observational studies contributed data. At the 12-year follow-up in one study, the risk of cognitive impairment (defined as cognitive disability deficits in at least five of 18 neuropsychological tests) was greater in the radiotherapy group (risk ratio (RR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.71; n = 65); at five to six years the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.06; n = 195). In the other study, one subject in the radiotherapy group had cognitive impairment (defined as significant deterioration in eight of 12 neuropsychological tests) at two years compared with none in the control group (very low certainty evidence).With regard to neurocognitive scores, in one study the radiotherapy group was reported to have had significantly worse mean scores on some tests compared with no radiotherapy; however, the raw data were only given for significant findings. In the second study, there were no clear differences in any of the various cognitive outcomes at two years (n = 31) and four years (n = 15) (very low certainty evidence).Radiotherapy versus chemotherapyOne RCT contributed data on cognitive impairment at up to three years with no clear difference between arms (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.70, n = 117) (low-certainty evidence).High-dose radiotherapy versus low-dose radiotherapyOnly one of two studies reporting this comparison contributed data, and at two and five years there were no clear differences between high- and low-dose radiotherapy arms (very low certainty evidence).Conventional radiotherapy versus stereotactic conformal radiotherapyOne study involving younger people contributed limited data from the subgroup aged 16 to 25 years. The numbers of participants with neurocognitive impairment at five years after treatment were two out of 12 in the conventional arm versus none out of 11 in the stereotactic conformal radiotherapy arm (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 86.72; n = 23; low-certainty evidence).Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapyTwo RCTs tested for cognitive impairment. One defined cognitive impairment as a decline of more than 3 points in MMSE score compared with baseline and reported data from 2-year (110 participants), 3-year (91 participants), and 5-year (57 participants) follow-up with no clear difference between the two arms at any time point. A second study did not report raw data but measured MMSE scores over five years in 126 participants at two years, 110 at three years, 69 at four years and 53 at five years. Authors concluded that there was no difference in MMSE scores between the two study arms (P = 0.4752) (low-certainty evidence).Two RCTs reported quality of life (QoL) outcomes for this comparison. One reported no differences in Brain-QoL scores between study arms over a 5-year follow-up period (P = 0.2767; no raw data were given and denominators were not stated). The other trial reported that the long-term results of health-related QoL showed no difference between the arms but did not give the raw data for overall HRQoL scores (low-certainty evidence).We found no comparative data on endocrine dysfunction; we planned to develop a brief economic commentary but found no relevant economic studies for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy for gliomas with a good prognosis may increase the risk of neurocognitive side effects in the long term; however the magnitude of the risk is uncertain. Evidence on long-term neurocognitive side effects associated with chemoradiotherapy is also uncertain. Neurocognitive assessment should be an integral part of long-term follow-up in trials involving radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas to improve the certainty of evidence regarding long-term neurocognitive effects. Such trials should also assess other potential long-term effects, including endocrine dysfunction, and evaluate costs and cost effectiveness.

Clinical importance of molecular markers of adult diffuse glioma.

In 2016, the WHO incorporated molecular markers, in addition to histology, into the diagnostic classification of central nervous system (CNS) tumours. This improves diagnostic accuracy and prognostication: oligo-astrocytoma no longer exists as a clinical entity; isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant and 1p/19q co-deleted oligodendroglioma is a smaller category with better prognosis; IDH wild-type 'low-grade' glioma has a much poorer prognosis; and glioblastoma is divided into IDH mutant (with an better prognosis than pre-2016 glioblastoma) and IDH wild type (with a poorer prognosis). Previous advice based on phenotype alone will change with respect to median survival, best management plan and response to treatment. There are implications for routine neuropathology reporting and future trial design. Cases that are difficult to classify may need more advanced molecular genetic classification through DNA methylation-based classification of CNS tumours (Heidelberg Classifier). We discuss the practical implications.