Search

Abstract: Aim: Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in glioblastoma can be challenging. For patients with recurrent glioblastoma managed on the CABARET trial, we compared disease status assessed at hospitals and subsequent blinded central expert radiological review. Methods: MRI results and clinical status at specified time points were used for site and central assessment of disease status. Clinical status was determined by the site. Response Assessment in Neuro‐Oncology (RANO) criteria were used for both assessments. Site and central assessments of progression‐free survival (PFS) and response rates were compared. Inter‐rater variability for central review progression dates was assessed. Results: Central review resulted in shorter PFS in 45% of 89 evaluable patients (n = 40). Median PFS was 3.6 (central) versus 3.9 months (site) (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3–1.8, P < 0.001). Responses were documented more frequently by sites (n = 16, 18%) than centrally (n = 11, 12%). Seven of 120 patients continued on trial without site‐determined progression for more than 6 months beyond the central review determination of progression. Of scans reviewed by all three central reviewers, 33% were fully concordant for progression date. Conclusion: While the difference between site and central PFS dates was statistically significant, the 0.3‐month median difference is small. The variability within central review is consistent with previous studies, highlighting the challenges in MRI interpretation in this context. A small proportion of patients benefited from treatment well beyond the centrally determined progression date, reinforcing that clinical status together with radiology results are important determinants of whether a therapy is effective for an individual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Stroke-like migraine attacks after radiation therapy, or SMART syndrome, is characterised by migraine-like headache with or without aura, transient neurological dysfunction, including seizures, and gyriform enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which resolves over a period of weeks. Detailed neuropsychological characterisation in SMART syndrome is lacking and there are no published data on the course and pattern of neurocognitive recovery. Results: The acute clinical presentation was one of unstable, fluctuating neurocognitive disturbances, complicated by seizure activity, followed by a longer term lag in the recovery of focal neuropsychological deficits which, we believe, was due to the more slowly resolving cerebral effects of SMART.Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first case of SMART syndrome in which neuropsychological functioning has been comprehensively and serially examined. This case is also unique due to the development of complex partial seizures. We suggest that epileptiform activity during clinical seizures should not be regarded as inconsistent with a diagnosis of SMART, provided that the seizures do not explain the onset of the other clinical and radiological features. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Glioblastoma is the most common aggressive primary central nervous system cancer in adults characterised by uniformly poor survival. Despite maximal safe resection and postoperative radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemotherapy, tumours inevitably recur. Imaging with O-(2-[ 18 F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) has the potential to impact adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) planning, distinguish between treatment-induced pseudoprogression versus tumour progression as well as prognostication., Methods and Analysis: The FET-PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) study is a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, phase II study across 10 Australian sites and will enrol up to 210 adults aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. FET-PET will be performed at up to three time points: (1) following initial surgery and prior to commencement of chemoradiation (FET-PET1); (2) 4 weeks following concurrent chemoradiation (FET-PET2); and (3) within 14 days of suspected clinical and/or radiological progression on MRI (performed at the time of clinical suspicion of tumour recurrence) (FET-PET3). The co-primary outcomes are: (1) to investigate how FET-PET versus standard MRI impacts RT volume delineation and (2) to determine the accuracy and management impact of FET-PET in distinguishing pseudoprogression from true tumour progression. The secondary outcomes are: (1) to investigate the relationships between FET-PET parameters (including dynamic uptake, tumour to background ratio, metabolic tumour volume) and progression-free survival and overall survival; (2) to assess the change in blood and tissue biomarkers determined by serum assay when comparing FET-PET data acquired prior to chemoradiation with other prognostic markers, looking at the relationships of FET-PET versus MRI-determined site/s of progressive disease post chemotherapy treatment with MRI and FET-PET imaging; and (3) to estimate the health economic impact of incorporating FET-PET into glioblastoma management and in the assessment of post-treatment pseudoprogression or recurrence/true progression. Exploratory outcomes include the correlation of multimodal imaging, blood and tumour biomarker analyses with patterns of failure and survival., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol V.2.0 dated 20 November 2020 has been approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Austin Health, Victoria). Other clinical sites will provide oversight through local governance processes, including obtaining informed consent from suitable participants. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results of the FIG study (TROG 18.06) will be disseminated via relevant scientific and consumer forums and peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ANZCTR ACTRN12619001735145., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in glioblastoma can be challenging. For patients with recurrent glioblastoma managed on the CABARET trial, we compared disease status assessed at hospitals and subsequent blinded central expert radiological review., Methods: MRI results and clinical status at specified time points were used for site and central assessment of disease status. Clinical status was determined by the site. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were used for both assessments. Site and central assessments of progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates were compared. Inter-rater variability for central review progression dates was assessed., Results: Central review resulted in shorter PFS in 45% of 89 evaluable patients (n = 40). Median PFS was 3.6 (central) versus 3.9 months (site) (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.8, P < 0.001). Responses were documented more frequently by sites (n = 16, 18%) than centrally (n = 11, 12%). Seven of 120 patients continued on trial without site-determined progression for more than 6 months beyond the central review determination of progression. Of scans reviewed by all three central reviewers, 33% were fully concordant for progression date., Conclusion: While the difference between site and central PFS dates was statistically significant, the 0.3-month median difference is small. The variability within central review is consistent with previous studies, highlighting the challenges in MRI interpretation in this context. A small proportion of patients benefited from treatment well beyond the centrally determined progression date, reinforcing that clinical status together with radiology results are important determinants of whether a therapy is effective for an individual., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)