The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review.

Background: The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods: Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

Adult brain tumour research in 2024: Status, challenges and recommendations.

In 2015, a groundswell of brain tumour patient, carer and charity activism compelled the UK Minister for Life Sciences to form a brain tumour research task and finish group. This resulted, in 2018, with the UK government pledging £20m of funding, to be paralleled with £25m from Cancer Research UK, specifically for neuro-oncology research over the subsequent 5 years. Herein, we review if and how the adult brain tumour research landscape in the United Kingdom has changed over that time and what challenges and bottlenecks remain. We have identified seven universal brain tumour research priorities and three cross-cutting themes, which span the research spectrum from bench to bedside and back again. We discuss the status, challenges and recommendations for each one, specific to the United Kingdom.

Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy: a phase II randomised trial of re-irradiation and chemotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (BRIOChe) - protocol for a multi-centre open-label randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common adult primary malignant brain tumour. The condition is incurable and, despite aggressive treatment at first presentation, almost all tumours recur after a median of 7 months. The aim of treatment at recurrence is to prolong survival and maintain health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Chemotherapy is typically employed for recurrent GBM, often using nitrosourea-based regimens. However, efficacy is limited, with reported median survivals between 5 and 9 months from recurrence. Although less commonly used in the UK, there is growing evidence that re-irradiation may produce survival outcomes at least similar to nitrosourea-based chemotherapy. However, there remains uncertainty as to the optimum approach and there is a paucity of available data, especially with regards to HRQoL. Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy (BRIOChe) aims to assess re-irradiation, as an acceptable treatment option for recurrent IDH-wild-type GBM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BRIOChe is a phase II, multi-centre, open-label, randomised trial in patients with recurrent GBM. The trial uses Sargent's three-outcome design and will recruit approximately 55 participants from 10 to 15 UK radiotherapy sites, allocated (2:1) to receive re-irradiation (35 Gy in 10 daily fractions) or nitrosourea-based chemotherapy (up to six, 6-weekly cycles). The primary endpoint is overall survival rate for re-irradiation patients at 9 months. There will be no formal statistical comparison between treatment arms for the decision-making primary analysis. The chemotherapy arm will be used for calibration purposes, to collect concurrent data to aid interpretation of results. Secondary outcomes include HRQoL, dexamethasone requirement, anti-epileptic drug requirement, radiological response, treatment compliance, acute and late toxicities, progression-free survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: BRIOChe obtained ethical approval from Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (reference no. 20/NI/0070). Final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to the ICMJE guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60524.

Concurrent Olaparib and Radiation Therapy in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: The Phase 1 Dose-Escalation PARADIGM Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with glioblastoma who are older or have poor performance status (PS) experience particularly poor clinical outcomes. At the time of study initiation, these patients were treated with short-course radiation therapy (40 Gy in 15 fractions). Olaparib is an oral inhibitor of the DNA repair enzyme poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) that is well tolerated as a single agent but exacerbates acute radiation toxicity in extracranial sites. Preclinical data predicted that PARP inhibitors would enhance radiosensitivity in glioblastoma without exacerbating adverse effects on the normal brain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Phase 1 of the PARADIGM trial was a 3+3 dose-escalation study testing olaparib in combination with radiation therapy (40 Gy 15 fractions) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who were unsuitable for radical treatment either because they were aged 70 years or older (World Health Organization PS 0-1) or aged 18 to 69 years with PS 2. The primary outcome was the recommended phase 2 dose of olaparib. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Effects on cognitive function were assessed via the Mini Mental State Examination. RESULTS: Of 16 eligible patients (56.25% male; median age, 71.5 years [range, 44-78]; 75% PS 0-1), 1 dose-limiting toxicity was reported (grade 3 agitation). Maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended phase 2 dose was determined as 200 mg twice daily. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.8 months (80% CI, 7.3-11.4) and 5.5 months (80% CI, 3.9-5.9), respectively. Mini Mental State Examination plots indicated that cognitive function was not adversely affected by the olaparib-radiation therapy combination. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib can be safely combined with hypofractionated brain radiation therapy and is well tolerated in patients unsuitable for radical chemoradiation. These results enabled initiation of a randomized phase 2 study and support future trials of PARP inhibitors in combination with radiation therapy for patients with brain tumors.

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.

Communication in the context of glioblastoma treatment: A qualitative study of what matters most to patients, caregivers and health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Patients with glioblastoma have a poor prognosis and treatment is palliative in nature from diagnosis. It is therefore critical that the benefits and burdens of treatments are clearly discussed with patients and caregivers. AIM: To explore experiences and preferences around glioblastoma treatment communication in patients, family caregivers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Qualitative design. A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 adult patients with glioblastoma, 13 caregivers and 5 healthcare professionals were recruited from Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) Communication practice and preferences. Risks and side-effects of anti-tumour treatments were explained clearly, with information layered and repeated. Treatment was often understood to be 'the only option'. Understanding the impact of side-effects could be enhanced, alongside information about support services. (2) What matters most. Patients/caregivers valued being well-supported by a trusted treatment team, feeling involved, having control and quality of life. Healthcare professionals similarly highlighted trust, maintaining independence and emotional support as key. (3) Decision-making. With limited treatment options, trust and control are crucial in decision-making. Patients ultimately prefer to follow healthcare professional advice but want to be involved, consider alternatives and voice what matters to them. (4) Impact of COVID-19. During the pandemic, greater efforts to maintain good communication were necessary. Negative impacts of COVID-19 were limited, caregivers appeared most disadvantaged by pandemic-related restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: In glioblastoma treatment communication, where prognosis is poor and treatmentwill not result in cure, building trusting relationships, maintaining a sense of control and being well-informed are identified as critical.

TORPEdO: A phase III trial of intensity-modulated proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for multi-toxicity reduction in oropharyngeal cancer.

•There is a lack of prospective level I evidence for the use of PBT for most adult cancers including oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).•TORPEdO is the UK's first PBT clinical trial and aims to determine the benefits of PBT for OPSCC.•Training and support has been provided before and during the trial to reduce variations of contouring and radiotherapy planning.•There is a strong translational component within TORPEdO. Imaging and physics data along with blood, tissue collection will inform future studies in refining patient selection for IMPT.

FUTURE-GB: functional and ultrasound-guided resection of glioblastoma - a two-stage randomised control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery remains the mainstay for treatment of primary glioblastoma, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Current standard of care during surgery involves the intraoperative use of image-guidance and 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA). There are multiple other surgical adjuncts available to the neuro-oncology surgeon. However, access to, and usage of these varies widely in UK practice, with limited evidence of their use. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether the addition of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) to the standard of care surgery (intraoperative neuronavigation and 5-ALA) impacts on deterioration free survival (DFS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a two-stage, randomised control trial (RCT) consisting of an initial non-randomised cohort study based on the principles of the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up) stage-IIb format, followed by a statistically powered randomised trial comparing the addition of DTI and iUS to the standard of care surgery. A total of 357 patients will be recruited for the RCT. The primary outcome is DFS, defined as the time to either 10-point deterioration in health-related quality of life scores from baseline, without subsequent reversal, progressive disease or death. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was registered in the Integrated Research Application System (Ref: 264482) and approved by a UK research and ethics committee (Ref: 20/LO/0840). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Further dissemination to participants, patient groups and the wider medical community will use a range of approaches to maximise impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN38834571.

Protocol for the Tessa Jowell BRAIN MATRIX Platform Study.

INTRODUCTION: Gliomas are the most common primary tumour of the central nervous system (CNS), with an estimated annual incidence of 6.6 per 100 000 individuals in the USA and around 14 deaths per day from brain tumours in the UK. The genomic and biological landscape of brain tumours has been increasingly defined and, since 2016, the WHO classification of tumours of the CNS incorporates molecular data, along with morphology, to define tumour subtypes more accurately. The Tessa Jowell BRAIN MATRIX Platform (TJBM) study aims to create a transformative clinical research infrastructure that leverages UK National Health Service resources to support research that is patient centric and attractive to both academic and commercial investors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The TJBM study is a programme of work with the principal purpose to improve the knowledge of glioma and treatment for patients with glioma. The programme includes a platform study and subsequent interventional clinical trials (as separate protocols). The platform study described here is the backbone data-repository of disease, treatment and outcome data from clinical, imaging and pathology data being collected in patients with glioma from secondary care hospitals. The primary outcome measure of the platform is time from biopsy to integrated histological-molecular diagnosis using whole-genome sequencing and epigenomic classification. Secondary outcome measures include those that are process centred, patient centred and framework based. Target recruitment for the study is 1000 patients with interim analyses at 100 and 500 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be performed in accordance with the recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects, adopted by the 18th World Medical Association General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland and stated in the respective participating countries' laws governing human research, and Good Clinical Practice. The protocol was initially approved on 18 February 2020 by West Midlands - Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee; the current protocol (v3.0) was approved on 15 June 2022. Participants will be required to provide written informed consent. A meeting will be held after the end of the study to allow discussion of the main results among the collaborators prior to publication. The results of this study will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Manuscripts will be prepared by the Study Management Group and authorship will be determined by mutual agreement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04274283, 18-Feb-2020; ISRCTN14218060, 03-Feb-2020.

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.

Interventions for the management of fatigue in adults with a primary brain tumour.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and clinically significant (or high levels) of fatigue. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and checked the reference lists of included studies in April 2022. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue to improve the clinical utility of the findings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JD, DC) independently evaluated search results for the updated search. Two review authors (JD, SYK) extracted data from selected studies, and carried out a risk of bias assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, mood, cognition, quality of life and adverse events outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: The original review identified one study and this update identified a further two for inclusion. One study investigated the use of modafinil, one study the use of armodafinil and one study the use of dexamfetamine. We identified three ongoing studies. In the original review, the single eligible trial compared modafinil to placebo for 37 participants with a high- or low-grade PBT. One new study compared two doses of armodafinil (150 mg and 250 mg) to placebo for 297 people with a high-grade glioma. The second new study compared dexamfetamine sulfate to placebo for 46 participants with a low- or high-grade PBT. The evidence was uncertain for both modafinil and dexamfetamine regarding fatigue outcome measures, compared to controls, at study endpoint. Two trials did not reach the planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. These trials were at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation for one study because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results and information regarding baseline characteristics and randomisation were not clear. The certainty of the evidence measured using GRADE was very low across all three studies. There was one identified study awaiting classification once data are available, which investigated the feasibility of 'health coaching' for people with a PBT experiencing fatigue. There were three ongoing studies that may be eligible for an update of this review, all investigating a non-pharmacological intervention for fatigue in people with PBT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.

Development of 'Core Outcome Sets' for Meningioma in Clinical Studies (The COSMIC Project): protocol for two systematic literature reviews, eDelphi surveys and online consensus meetings.

INTRODUCTION: Meningioma is the most common primary intracranial tumour in adults. The majority are non-malignant, but a proportion behave more aggressively. Incidental/minimally symptomatic meningioma are often managed by serial imaging. Symptomatic meningioma, those that threaten neurovascular structures, or demonstrate radiological growth, are usually resected as first-line management strategy. For patients in poor clinical condition, or with inoperable, residual or recurrent disease, radiotherapy is often used as primary or adjuvant treatment. Effective pharmacotherapy treatments do not currently exist. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical studies. Two 'Core Outcome Sets' (COS) will be developed: (COSMIC: Intervention) for use in meningioma clinical effectiveness trials and (COSMIC: Observation) for use in clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two systematic literature reviews and trial registry searches will identify outcomes measured and reported in published and ongoing (1) meningioma clinical effectiveness trials, and (2) clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. Outcomes include those that are clinician reported, patient reported, caregiver reported and based on objective tests (eg, neurocognitive tests), as well as measures of progression and survival. Outcomes will be deduplicated and categorised to generate two long lists. The two long lists will be prioritised through two, two-round, international, modified eDelphi surveys including patients with meningioma, healthcare professionals, researchers and those in caring/supporting roles. The two final COS will be ratified through two 1-day online consensus meetings, with representation from all stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional review board (University of Liverpool) approval was obtained for the conduct of this study. Participant eConsent will be obtained prior to participation in the eDelphi surveys and consensus meetings. The two systematic literature reviews and two final COS will be published and freely available. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: COMET study ID 1508.

Opportunities and challenges for the development of "core outcome sets" in neuro-oncology.

Core Outcome Sets (COS) define minimum outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical effectiveness trials for a particular health condition/health area. Despite recognition as critical to clinical research design for other health areas, none have been developed for neuro-oncology. COS development projects should carefully consider: scope (how the COS should be used), stakeholders involved in development (including patients as both research partners and participants), and consensus methodologies used (typically a Delphi survey and consensus meeting), as well as dissemination plans. Developing COS for neuro-oncology is potentially challenging due to extensive tumor subclassification (including molecular stratification), different symptoms related to anatomical tumor location, and variation in treatment options. Development of a COS specific to tumor subtype, in a specific location, for a particular intervention may be too narrow and would be unlikely to be used. Equally, a COS that is applicable across a wider area of neuro-oncology may be too broad and therefore lack specificity. This review describes why and how a COS may be developed, and discusses challenges for their development, specific to neuro-oncology. The COS under development are briefly described, including: adult glioma, incidental/untreated meningioma, meningioma requiring intervention, and adverse events from surgical intervention for pediatric brain tumors.

Early palliative interventions for improving outcomes in people with a primary malignant brain tumour and their carers.

BACKGROUND: Primary malignant brain tumours can have an unpredictable course, but high-grade gliomas typically have a relentlessly progressive disease trajectory. They can cause profound symptom burden, affecting physical, neurocognitive, and social functioning from an early stage in the illness. This can significantly impact on role function and on the experiences and needs of informal caregivers. Access to specialist palliative and supportive care early in the disease trajectory, for those with high-grade tumours in particular, has the potential to improve patients' and caregivers' quality of life. However, provision of palliative and supportive care for people with primary brain tumours - and their informal caregivers - is historically ill-defined and ad hoc, and the benefits of early palliative interventions have not been confirmed. It is therefore important to define the role and effectiveness of early referral to specialist palliative care services and/or the effectiveness of other interventions focused on palliating disease impact on people and their informal caregivers. This would help guide improvement to service provision, by defining those interventions which are effective across a range of domains, and developing an evidence-based model of integrated supportive and palliative care for this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence base for early palliative care interventions, including referral to specialist palliative care services compared to usual care, for improving outcomes in adults diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their carers. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of electronic databases, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (last searched 16 November 2021). We conducted searches to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative search terms. In addition to this, we searched for any currently recruiting trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, and undertook citation tracking via Scopus. We also handsearched reference lists of potentially eligible systematic review articles to identify any other relevant studies, contacted experts in the field and searched key authors via Web of Science and searched SIGLE (System of Information on Grey Literature in Europe). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies looking at early referral to specialist palliative care services - or early targeted palliative interventions by other healthcare professionals - for improving quality of life, symptom control, psychological outcomes, or overall survival as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies (NRS), as well as qualitative and mixed-methods studies where both qualitative and quantitative data were included. Participants were adults with a confirmed radiological and/or histological diagnosis of a primary malignant brain tumour, and/or informal adult carers (either at individual or family level) of people with a primary malignant brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data extraction, management, and analysis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for symptom control, i.e. cognitive function. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 9748 references from the searches, with 8337 remaining after duplicates were removed. After full-text review, we included one trial. There were no studies of early specialist palliative care interventions or of early, co-ordinated generalist palliative care approaches. The included randomised trial addressed a single symptom area, focusing on early cognitive rehabilitation, administered within two weeks of surgery in a mixed brain tumour population, of whom approximately half had a high-grade glioma. The intervention was administered individually as therapist-led computerised exercises over 16 one-hour sessions, four times/week for four weeks. Sessions addressed several cognitive domains including time orientation, spatial orientation, visual attention, logical reasoning, memory, and executive function. There were no between-group differences in outcome for tests of logical-executive function, but differences were observed in the domains of visual attention and verbal memory. Risk of bias was assessed and stated as high for performance bias and attrition bias but for selective reporting it was unclear whether all outcomes were reported. We considered the certainty of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, to be very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is a lack of research focusing on the introduction of early palliative interventions specifically for people with primary brain tumours, either as co-ordinated specialist palliative care approaches or interventions focusing on a specific aspect of palliation. Future research should address the methodological shortcomings described in early palliative intervention studies in other cancers and chronic conditions. In particular, the specific population under investigation, the timing and the setting of the intervention should be clearly described and the standardised palliative care-specific components of the intervention should be defined in detail.

Evaluation of evidence supporting NICE recommendations to change people's lifestyle in clinical practice: cross sectional survey.

Objectives: To assess whether recommendations of individually oriented lifestyle interventions (IOLIs) in guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were underpinned by evidence of benefit, and whether harms and opportunity costs were considered. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: UK. Data sources: NICE guidelines and supporting evidence. Eligibility criteria: All NICE pathways for IOLI recommendations (ie, non-drug interventions that healthcare professionals administer to adults to achieve a healthier lifestyle and improve health) were searched systematically on 26 August 2020. One author screened all retrieved pathways for candidate guidelines, while a second author verified these judgments. Two authors independently and in duplicate screened all retrieved guidelines and recommendations for eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the evidence cited and the outcomes considered. Disagreements were noted and resolved by consensus. Results: Within 57 guidelines, 379 NICE recommendations were found for IOLIs; almost all (n=374; 99%) recommended the lifestyle intervention and five (1%) recommended against the intervention. Of the 379 recommendations, 13 (3%) were supported by moderate or high certainty evidence of a beneficial effect on patient relevant outcomes (n=7; 2%) or surrogate outcomes (n=13; 3%). 19 (5%) interventions considered psychosocial harms, 32 (8%) considered physical harms, and one (<1%) considered the opportunity costs of implementation. No intervention considered the burden placed on individuals by these recommendations. Conclusion: Few NICE recommendations of lifestyle interventions are supported by reliable evidence. While this finding does not contest the beneficial effects of healthy habits, guidelines recommending clinicians to try to change people's lifestyle need to be reconsidered given the substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness, harms, and opportunity costs of such interventions.

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.