Application of Novel Response/Progression Measures for Surgically Delivered Therapies for Gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group
ABSTRACT The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group is an international, multidisciplinary effort to develop new standardized response criteria for clinical trials in brain tumors. The RANO group identified knowledge gaps relating to the definitions of tumor response and progression after the use of surgical or surgically based treatments.
To outline a proposal for new response and progression criteria for the assessment of the effects of surgery and surgically delivered therapies for patients with gliomas.
The Surgery Working Group of RANO identified surgically related end-point evaluation problems that were not addressed in the original Macdonald criteria, performed an extensive literature review, and used a consensus-building process to develop recommendations for how to address these issues in the setting of clinical trials.
Recommendations were formulated for surgically related issues, including imaging changes associated with surgical resection or surgically mediated adjuvant local therapies, the determination of progression in the setting where all enhancing tumor has been removed, and how new enhancement should be interpreted in the setting where local therapies that are known to produce nonspecific enhancement have been used. Additionally, the terminology used to describe the completeness of surgical resections has been recognized to be inconsistently applied to enhancing vs nonenhancing tumors, and a new set of descriptors is proposed.
The RANO process is intended to produce end-point criteria for clinical trials that take into account the effects of prior and ongoing therapies. The RANO criteria will continue to evolve as new therapies and technologies are introduced into clinical trial and/or practice.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose of review: Recent advances in survival for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent brain tumors, combined with the development of an ever-increasing number of potential treatments, has led to significant growth in the number of clinical trials for patients with brain tumors. Suitable clinical trial design and endpoints are vital for successfully evaluating these new treatments that may continue to improve outcome. However, inadequacies of clinical trial endpoints have challenged how best to evaluate promising new therapeutics. Recent findings: Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse confound imaging-based endpoints, including overall radiographic response and progression-free survival. Overall survival is still regarded as the definitive endpoint, but recently identified active salvage agents such as bevacizumab may diminish the association between presalvage therapy and overall survival, making interpretation of clinical trial results difficult. Novel imaging and the assessment of patient function, quality of life (QOL), and cognition are more frequently employed as endpoints. Summary: An awareness of the benefits and imperfections of clinical trial endpoints will lead to improved clinical trial design and results. Validated endpoints of patient function, QOL, and cognition are available and increasingly valued as secondary endpoints.Current Opinion in Neurology 01/2012; 25(6):780-785. DOI:10.1097/WCO.0b013e328359b45e · 5.73 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: : Complete resection of contrast-enhancing tumor has been recognized as an important prognostic factor in patients with glioblastoma and is a primary goal of surgery. Various intraoperative technologies have recently been introduced to improve glioma surgery. : To evaluate the impact of using 5-aminolevulinic acid and intraoperative mapping and monitoring on the rate of complete resection of enhancing tumor (CRET), gross total resection (GTR), and new neurological deficits as part of an institutional protocol. : One hundred three consecutive patients underwent resection of glioblastoma from August 2008 to November 2010. Eligibility for CRET was based on the initial magnetic resonance imaging assessed by 2 reviewers. The primary end point was the number of patients with CRET and GTR. Secondary end points were volume of residual contrast-enhancing tissue and new postoperative neurological deficits. : Fifty-three patients were eligible for GTR/CRET (n = 43 newly diagnosed glioblastoma, n = 10 recurrent); 13 additional patients received surgery for GTR/CRET-ineligible glioblastoma. GTR was achieved in 96% of patients (n = 51, no residual enhancement > 0.175 cm); CRET was achieved in 89% (n = 47, no residual enhancement). Postoperatively, 2 patients experienced worsening of preoperative hemianopia, 1 patient had a new mild hemiparesis, and another patient sustained sensory deficits. : Using 5-aminolevulinic acid imaging and intraoperative mapping/monitoring together leads to a high rate of CRET and an increased rate of GTR compared with the literature without increasing the rate of permanent morbidity. The combination of safety and resection-enhancing intraoperative technologies was likely to be the major drivers for this high rate of CRET/GTR. : CRET, complete resection of enhancing tumor5-ALA, 5-aminolevulinic acidGTR, gross total resectionIOM, intraoperative monitoringMEP, motor evoked potentialSSEP, somatosensory evoked potential.Neurosurgery 08/2012; 71(5):927-36. DOI:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826d1e6b · 3.03 Impact Factor
- 12/2012; 3(4):551-570. DOI:10.1260/2040-2222.214.171.1241