18F-FDG PET/CT versus anatomic imaging for evaluating disease extent and clinical trial eligibility in Erdheim-Chester disease: results from 50 patients in a registry study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to [1] characterize distribution of Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) by 18F-FDG PET/CT and [2] determine the utility of metabolic (18F-FDG PET/CT) imaging versus anatomic imaging (CT or MRI) in evaluating ECD patients for clinical trial eligibility. METHODS: 18F-FDG PET/CT and corresponding CT or MRI studies for ECD patients enrolled in a prospective registry study were reviewed. Sites of disease were classified as [1] detectable by 18F-FDG PET only, CT/MRI only, or both and as [2] measurable by modified PERCIST (mPERCIST) only, RECIST only, or both. Descriptive analysis was performed and paired t test for between-group comparisons. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included (mean age 51.5 years; range 18-70 years). Three hundred thirty-three disease sites were detected among all imaging modalities, 188 (56%) by both 18F-FDG PET and CT/MRI, 67 (20%) by 18F-FDG PET only, 75 (23%) by MRI brain only, and 3 (1%) by CT only. Of 178 disease sites measurable by mPERCIST or RECIST, 40 (22%) were measurable by both criteria, 136 (76%) by mPERCIST only, and 2 (1%) by RECIST only. On the patient level, 17 (34%) had mPERCIST and RECIST measurable disease, 30 (60%) had mPERCIST measurable disease only, and 0 had RECIST measurable disease only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with anatomic imaging, 18F-FDG PET/CT augments evaluation of disease extent in ECD and increases identification of disease sites measurable by formal response criteria and therefore eligibility for clinical trials. Complementary organ-specific anatomic imaging offers the capacity to characterize sites of disease in greater anatomic detail. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03329274.

Ethics consultations in neuro-oncology.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with brain tumors can lead to ethical and decisional dilemmas. The aim of this study was to characterize ethical conflicts encountered in neuro-oncologic patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of ethics consultations performed upon patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors at a tertiary cancer center. An ethics consultation database was examined to characterize ethical conflicts, contextual factors, and interventions by the consultation team. RESULTS: Fifty consultations were reviewed; 28 (56%) patients were women, median age 54 (range 4-86); 27 (54%) patients had a primary central nervous system malignancy; 20 (40%) had brain metastasis. At the time of consultations, 41 (82%) patients lacked decisional capacity; 48 (96%) had a designated surrogate decision maker; 3 (6%) had an advance directive outlining wishes regarding medical treatment; 12 (24%) had a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) order. Ethical conflicts centered upon management of end-of-life (EOL) circumstances in 37 (72%) of cases; of these, 30 did not have decisional capacity. The most common ethical issues were DNAR status, surrogate decision making, and request for nonbeneficial treatment. Consultants resolved conflicts by facilitating decision making for incapacitated patients in 30 (60%) cases, communication between conflicting parties in 10 (20%), and re-articulation of patients' previously stated wishes in 6 (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Decisional capacity at EOL represents the primary ethical challenge in care of neuro-oncologic patients. Incomplete awareness among surrogate decision makers of patients' prognosis and preferences contributes to communication gaps and dilemmas. Early facilitation of communication between patients, caregivers, and medical providers may prevent or mitigate conflicts and allow the enactment of patients' goals and values.