Search

Enrolling medulloblastoma(MB) patients in the PNET5 protocol is a daily problem in Italy; since June 2015, 59 cases have been enrolled in 13 centres. So far, 44 of the 103 patients claiming for eligibility did not enter the protocol: 13 metastases, 5 for residual, 20 having exclusion criteria, 4 insufficient frozen material, 2 failure to comply with the correct procedures. No case was lost due to delayed centralization, which is respected even with committing weekends; review of the radiation plan was performed on Saturday for 2 cases, and radiotherapy began on the same day. We made some procedural changes to meet expected deadlines; each local centre notifies the national coordinator of a possible case's existence at MRI diagnosis, of the expected surgery date as well as its realization. MRI imaging is reviewed within 2 days after centralization. Paediatricians notify the national coordinator and pathology/biology reference centre of the MB diagnosis; the shipment of frozen tissue, blood and FFPE is booked. A slot is reserved to priority perform the central pathology review, as well as central molecular diagnosis of genetically defined subgroup (WHO classification) upon receipt of the frozen material. Upon receipt of the FFPE and frozen material, the national reference centre undertakes a double-check with the national coordinator and the local treatment centre to validate the eligibility. Within the 7th day from the receipt of the material: IHC, MYC/MYCN, Monosomy 6, beta-catenin mutation and methylation array are performed. Priority execution of somatic (blood control) sequencing of the PTCH, SUFU, and TP53 genes is also triggered for SHH-activated MB, with the deadline on the 15th day. So far we have had 99% agreement between molecular subgrouping and methylation array. CONCLUSIONS: PNET5 requirements are multiple and changing over time; difficulties may and must be overcome by mutual fast collaboration.

Aims of patient follow-up are: discovering relapse to apply second-line therapy for possible cure, accruing patients in phase 1/2 protocols if second-line therapy is not standardized/curative, evaluating/treating iatrogenic effects. To lessen the patient/family emotional and social economic burdens, we should ideally understand if scheduled radiological follow-up has a better rationale/outcome than the symptomatic relapse. We analyzed the Italian series of 2016 (doi:10.1093/neuonc/now108) comprehending 160 newly diagnosed pediatric/adolescent patients with intracranial ependymoma (EPD) according to relapse status (recurrence at scheduled exam [RECPT]/sign-symptomatic recurring [SYMPPT]). RECPT and SYMPPT were assessed in Cox model as time-dependent variables for overall survival (OS). Differences in characteristics between RECPT and SYMPPT subgroups were assessed by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or Fisher Exact tests. Kaplan-Meier curves depicted event-free survival (EFS) and OS after recurrence according to signs/symptoms. There were 16 SYMPPT /34 RECPT, at a median follow-up of 55 months. No significant differences were found between SYMPPT/RECPT for gender, age, tumor grade/site, shunt, residual disease, radiation boost, type of relapse (local/distant/combined). Time-to-relapse (median:19 months, range 5–104) and treatment adoption did not differ between SYMPPT/RECPT while signs/symptoms depicted an unfavorable factor for OS after relapse (5-year OS: 8% vs 37%). Adjusted model in multivariate analysis confirmed that presence of signs/symptoms was prognostically unfavorable. In order to improve the OS in symptomatic patients, their early identification-in the first two/three years after diagnosis- would be desirable. Perhaps, this could be obtained paying attention to “heuristically detected” subgroup of patients, not just describing general prognostic variables but discovering possible biology differences according to signs/symptoms.