Search

Background: Patients’ reduced awareness of neurocognitive functioning (NCF) may negatively affect the reliability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical decision-making. This study evaluated cognitive awareness, defined as the association between NCF and neurocognitive complaints, over the disease course of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG). Methods: We assessed NCF using the EORTC core clinical trial battery and neurocognitive complaints using the Medical Outcome Study questionnaire. Patients were categorised as impaired or intact, based on their neurocognitive performance. Spearman's rank correlations were calculated between NCF and neurocognitive complaints at baseline and each 12 weeks, until 36. The association between changes in NCF and neurocognitive complaints scores between these follow-up assessments was determined using Pearson's correlation. Results: A total of 546 patients were included. Neurocognitively impaired patients (n = 437) had more neurocognitive complaints (range: 10.51 [p < 0.001] to 13.34 [p = 0.001]) than intact patients (n = 109) at baseline, at 12 and 24 weeks. In intact patients, NCF and neurocognitive complaints were correlated for only one domain at baseline (0.202, p = 0.036), while in impaired patients correlations were more frequently found in various domains and time points (range: 0.164 [p = 0.001] to 0.334 [p = 0.011]). Over the disease course, NCF and neurocognitive complaints were correlated for only one domain at baseline (0.357, p = 0.014) in intact patients while in impaired patients they were correlated for more domains and time points (range: 0.222 [p < 0.001] to 0.366 [p < 0.001]). Conclusion: Neurocognitively impaired patients with recurrent HGG are aware of their neurocognitive limitations at study entry and during follow-up, which should be considered in clinical decision-making and when interpreting PRO results.

Background and ObjectivesAbout 30% of patients with glioma need an add-on antiseizure medication (ASM) due to uncontrolled seizures on ASM monotherapy. This study aimed to determine whether levetiracetam combined with valproic acid (LEV + VPA), a commonly prescribed duotherapy, is more effective than other duotherapy combinations including either LEV or VPA in patients with glioma.MethodsIn this multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, treatment failure (i.e., replacement by, addition of, or withdrawal of an ASM) for any reason was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included (1) treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures and (2) treatment failure due to adverse effects. Time to treatment failure was estimated from the moment of ASM duotherapy initiation. Multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to study the association between risk factors and treatment failure. The maximum duration of follow-up was 36 months.ResultsA total of 1,435 patients were treated with first-line monotherapy LEV or VPA, of which 355 patients received ASM duotherapy after they had treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures on monotherapy. LEV + VPA was prescribed in 66% (236/355) and other ASM duotherapy combinations including LEV or VPA in 34% (119/355) of patients. Patients using other duotherapy vs LEV + VPA had a higher risk of treatment failure for any reason (cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.50 [95% CI 1.07–2.12], p = 0.020), due to uncontrolled seizures (cause-specific aHR 1.73 [95% CI 1.10–2.73], p = 0.018), but not due to adverse effects (cause-specific aHR 0.88 [95% CI 0.47–1.67], p = 0.703).DiscussionThis observational cohort study suggests that LEV + VPA has better efficacy than other ASM combinations. Similar toxicities were experienced in the 2 groups.Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with glioma with uncontrolled seizures on ASM monotherapy, LEV + VPA has better efficacy than other ASM combinations.

AbstractGlioma patients carry the burden of having both a progressive neurological disease and cancer, and may face a variety of symptoms, including depression and anxiety. These symptoms are highly prevalent in glioma patients (median point prevalence ranging from 16–41% for depression and 24–48% for anxiety when assessed by self-report questionnaires) and have a major impact on health-related quality of life and even overall survival time. A worse overall survival time for glioma patients with depressive symptoms might be due to tumor progression and/or its supportive treatment causing depressive symptoms, an increased risk of suicide or other (unknown) factors. Much is still unclear about the etiology of depressive and anxiety symptoms in glioma. These psychiatric symptoms often find their cause in a combination of neurophysiological and psychological factors, such as the tumor and/or its treatment. Although these patients have a particular idiosyncrasy, standard treatment guidelines for depressive and anxiety disorders apply, generally recommending psychological and pharmacological treatment. Only a few nonpharmacological trials have been conducted evaluating the efficacy of psychological treatments (eg, a reminiscence therapy-based care program) in this population, which significantly reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms. No pharmacological trials have been conducted in glioma patients specifically. More well-designed trials evaluating the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments for depressive and anxiety disorders in glioma are urgently needed to successfully treat psychiatric symptoms in brain tumor patients and to improve (health-related) quality of life.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit–risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

Background: Glioblastoma patients are considered to be at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding (MB), although reliable incidence estimates are lacking. Moreover, the risk of arterial thromboembolism (ATE) in these patients is largely unknown. Our aim was to assess the cumulative incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of VTE, ATE, and MB on subsequent complications and mortality. Methods: Cohort study of 967 consecutive patients diagnosed with glioblastoma between 2004–2020 in two hospitals. Patients were followed from 6 months before date of histopathological glioblastoma diagnosis up to 2 years after, or until an outcome of interest (VTE, ATE, and MB) or death occurred, depending on the analysis. Cumulative incidences were estimated with death as competing risk. Cox regression was used to identify predictors and the prognostic impact. Results: A total of 101 patients were diagnosed with VTE, 50 with ATE, and 126 with MB during a median follow-up of 15 months (interquartile range 9.0–22). The adjusted 1-year cumulative incidence of VTE was 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9–9.3), of ATE 4.1% (95% CI 3.0–5.6), and of MB 12% (95% CI 9.6–14). Older age, type of surgery, and performance status were predictors of VTE. Incident VTE during follow-up was associated with MB (adjusted HR 4.7, 95% CI 2.5–9.0). MB and VTE were associated with mortality (adjusted HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.1 and 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.7, respectively). Conclusion: We found considerable incidences of VTE and MB in glioblastoma patients, with both complications associated with poorer prognosis. Our observations emphasize the need for prospective studies to determine optimal thromboprophylaxis and VTE treatment strategy in these patients.

Background The feasibility of implementing an advance care planning (ACP) program in daily clinical practice for glioblastoma patients is unknown. We aimed to evaluate a previously developed disease-specific ACP program, including the optimal timing of initiation and the impact of the program on several patient-, proxy-, and care-related outcomes. Methods The content and design of the ACP program were evaluated, and outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depression, and satisfaction with care were measured every 3 months over 15 months. Results Eighteen patient-proxy dyads and two proxies participated in the program. The content and design of the ACP program were rated as sufficient. The preference for the optimal timing of initiation of the ACP program varied widely, however, most of the participants preferred initiation shortly after chemoradiation. Over time, aspects of HRQoL remained stable in our patient population. Similarly, the ACP program did not decrease the levels of anxiety and depression in patients, and a large proportion of proxies reported anxiety and/or depression. The needed level of support for proxies was relatively low throughout the disease course, and the level of feelings of caregiver mastery was relatively high. Overall, patients were satisfied with the provided care over time, whereas proxies were less satisfied in some aspects. Conclusions The content and design of the developed disease-specific ACP program were rated as satisfactory. Whether the program has an actual impact on patient-, proxy-, and care-related outcomes proxies remain to be investigated.

Background Fatigue is a commonly reported and severe symptom in primary brain tumor patients, but the exact occurrence in meningioma patients is unknown. This study aimed to determine the frequency and severity of fatigue in meningioma patients as well as associations between the level of fatigue and patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors. Methods In this multicenter cross-sectional study, meningioma patients completed questionnaires on fatigue (MFI-20), sleep (PSQI), anxiety and depression (HADS), tumor-related symptoms (MDASI-BT) and cognitive functioning (MOS-CFS). Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate the independent association between fatigue and each patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factor separately, corrected for relevant confounders. Results Based on predetermined in- and exclusion criteria, 275 patients, on average 5.3 (SD=2.0) years since diagnosis, were recruited. Most patients had undergone resection (92%). Meningioma patients reported higher scores on all fatigue subscales compared to normative data and 26% were classified as fatigued. Having experienced a complication due to resection (OR 3.6, 95% CI: 1.8-7.0), having received radiotherapy (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.2-4.8), a higher number of comorbidities (OR 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-1.9) and lower educational level (low level as reference; high level OR 0.3, 95% CI: 0.2-0.7) were independently associated with more fatigue. Conclusions Fatigue is a frequent problem in meningioma patients even many years after treatment. Both patient- and treatment-related factors were determinants of fatigue, with the treatment-related factors being the most likely target for intervention in this patient population.

Background and ObjectivesApproximately 10% of patients with glioma with epilepsy need antiseizure medication (ASM) triple therapy due to refractory epilepsy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether levetiracetam combined with valproic acid and clobazam (LEV + VPA + CLB), a frequently prescribed triple therapy, has favorable effectiveness compared with other triple therapy combinations in patients with glioma.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective observational cohort study. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of time to treatment failure for any reason, from the start of ASM triple therapy treatment. The secondary outcomes included cumulative incidences of the following: (1) time to treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures; (2) time to treatment failure due to adverse effects; and (3) time to recurrent seizures. Patients were followed up for a maximum duration of 36 months.ResultsOf 1,435 patients in the original cohort, 90 patients received ASM triple therapy after second-line ASM treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures. LEV + VPA + CLB was prescribed to 48% (43/90) and other ASM triple therapy to 52% (47/90) of patients. The cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason of LEV + VPA + CLB did not statistically significantly differ from that of other ASM triple therapy combinations (12 months: 47% [95% CI 31%–62%] vs 42% [95% CI 27%–56%],p= 0.892). No statistically significant differences for treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (12 months: 12% [95% CI 4%–25%] vs 18% [95% CI 8%–30%],p= 0.445), adverse effects (12 months: 22% [95% CI 11%–36%] vs 15% [95% CI 7%–27%],p= 0.446), or recurrent seizures (1 month: 65% [95% CI 48%–78%] vs 63% [95% CI 47%–75%],p= 0.911) were found.DiscussionLEV + VPA + CLB might show equivalent effectiveness compared with other ASM triple therapy combinations in patients with glioma.Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with glioma with refractory epilepsy on triple therapy ASMs, LEV + VPA + CLB demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability compared with other ASM triple therapy combinations.

Patients with brain tumors experience great symptom burden across various domains of functioning, with associated decreases in health-related quality of life and general well-being. Impaired neurocognitive functioning is among the primary concerns of these patients. Unfortunately, most patients will experience such impairment at some point in the disease. However, impaired neurocognitive functioning, symptom burden, and well-being vary according numerous patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors. Recent work has furthered our understanding of these contributors to patient functioning and health-related quality of life and also points to various potential targets for prevention and intervention strategies, though more efficacious treatments remain needed.

Introduction: Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MID) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 proposed ≥10 points change as clinically meaningful for all scales. Increasing evidence that MIDs can vary by scale, direction of change, cancer type and estimation method has raised doubt about a single global standard. This paper identifies MID patterns for interpreting group-level change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores across nine cancer types. Methods: Data were obtained from 21 published EORTC Phase III trials that enrolled 13,015 patients across nine cancer types (brain, colorectal, advanced breast, head/neck, lung, mesothelioma, melanoma, ovarian, and prostate). Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were obtained via mean change method and linear regression respectively. Separate MIDs were estimated for improvements and deteriorations. Distribution-based estimates were derived and compared with anchor-based MIDs. Results: Anchor-based MIDs mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. Differences in MIDs for improvement vs deterioration, for both within-group and between-group, were mostly within a 2-points range. Larger differences between within-group and between-group MIDs were observed for several scales in ovarian, lung and head/neck cancer. Most anchor-based MIDs ranged between 0.3 SD and 0.5 SD distribution-based estimates. Conclusions: Our results reinforce recent claims that no single MID can be applied to all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and disease settings. MIDs varied by scale, improvement/deterioration, within/between comparisons and by cancer type. Researchers applying commonly used rules of thumb must be aware of the risk of dismissing changes that are clinically meaningful or underpowering analyses when smaller MIDs apply.

Background and objectives: Patients with glioblastoma have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the role of underlying genetic risk factors remains largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to discover whether genetic aberrations in glioblastoma associate with VTE risk. Methods: In this cohort study, all consecutive patients diagnosed with glioblastoma in two Dutch hospitals between February 2017 and August 2020 were included. Targeted DNA next-generation sequencing of all glioblastomas was performed for diagnostic purposes and included mutational status of the genes ATRX, BRAF, CIC, FUBP1, H3F3A, IDH1, IDH2, PIK3CA, PTEN and TP53 and amplification/gain or deletion of BRAF, CDKN2A, EGFR, NOTCH1 and PTEN. The primary outcome was VTE within three months before glioblastoma diagnosis until two years after. Cumulative incidences were determined using competing risk analysis adjusting for mortality. Univariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine hazard ratios. Results: From 324 patients with glioblastoma, 25 were diagnosed with VTE. Patients with a CDKN2A deletion had a 12-month adjusted cumulative incidence of VTE of 12.5 % (95%CI: 7.3–19.3) compared with 5.4 % (95%CI: 2.6–9.6) in patients with CDKN2A wildtype (p = 0.020), corresponding to a HR of 2.53 (95%CI: 1.12–5.73, p = 0.026). No significant associations were found between any of the other investigated genes and VTE. Conclusion: This study suggests a potential role for CDKN2A deletion in glioblastoma-related VTE. Therefore, once independently validated, CDKN2A mutational status may be a promising predictor to identify glioblastoma patients at high risk for VTE, who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis.

Background: Treatment response assessment in patients with brain metastasis uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the diagnostic accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available MRI techniques for treatment response.Methods: A systematic literature search was done. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model. An independent cohort was used for DSC perfusion external validation of diagnostic accuracy.Results: Anatomical MRI (16 studies, 726 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 76%. DCE perfusion (4 studies, 114 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 92%. DSC perfusion (12 studies, 418 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity was 83% with a specificity of 78%. Diffusion weighted imaging (7 studies, 288 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 79%. MRS (4 studies, 54 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 78%. Combined techniques (6 studies, 375 lesions) showed a pooled sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 88%. External validation of DSC showed a lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for the reported cut-off values included in this metaanalysis.Conclusion: A combination of techniques shows the highest diagnostic accuracy differentiating tumor progression from treatment induced abnormalities. External validation of imaging results is important to better define the reliability of imaging results with the different techniques.

Background This systematic review provides updated insights, from the published literature in the past 5 years, based on the 2017 European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guidelines for palliative care in adults with malignant brain tumors. It provides an overview of palliative care options, including during the end-of-life phase for patients with malignant brain tumors. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted from 2016 to 2021 focusing on four main topics: (1) symptom management, (2) caregiver needs, (3) early palliative care, and (4) care in the end-of-life phase. An international panel of palliative care experts in neuro-oncology synthesized the literature and reported the most relevant updates. A total of 140 articles were included. Results New insights include that: Hippocampal avoidance and stereotactic radiosurgery results in a lower risk of neurocognitive decline in patients with brain metastases; levetiracetam is more efficacious in reducing seizures than valproic acid as first-line monotherapy antiseizure drug (ASD) in glioma patients; lacosamide and perampanel seem well-tolerated and efficacious add-on ASDs; and a comprehensive framework of palliative and supportive care for high-grade glioma patients and their caregivers was proposed. No pharmacological agents have been shown in randomized controlled trials to significantly improve fatigue or neurocognition. Conclusions Since the 2017 EANO palliative care guidelines, new insights have been reported regarding symptom management and end-of-life care, however, most recommendations remain unchanged. Early palliative care interventions are essential to define goals of care and minimize symptom burden in a timely fashion. Interventional studies that address pain, fatigue, and psychiatric symptoms as well as (the timing of) early palliative care are urgently needed.

Introduction: Systematic reviews (SR) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMA) can constitute the highest level of research evidence. Such evidence syntheses are relied upon heavily to inform the clinical knowledge base and to guide clinical practice for meningioma. This review evaluates the reporting and methodological quality of published meningioma evidence syntheses to date. Methods: Eight electronic databases/registries were searched to identify eligible meningioma SRs with and without meta-analysis published between January 1990 and December 2020. Articles concerning spinal meningioma were excluded. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed against the following tools: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), and Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS). Results: 116 SRs were identified, of which 57 were SRMAs (49.1%). The mean PRISMA score for SRMA was 20.9 out of 27 (SD 3.9, 77.0% PRISMA adherence) and for SR without meta-analysis was 13.8 out of 22 (SD 3.4, 63% PRISMA adherence). Thirty-eight studies (32.8%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA. Methodological quality assessment against AMSTAR 2 revealed that 110 (94.8%) studies were of critically low quality. Only 21 studies (18.1%) were judged to have a low risk of bias against ROBIS. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses was poor. Established guidelines and critical appraisal tools may be used as an adjunct to aid methodological conduct and reporting of such reviews, in order to improve the validity and transparency of research which may influence clinical practice.

Introduction AEDs have been associated with depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment, all frequent complications of glioma and its subsequent treatment, with considerable morbidity and an adverse effect on health-related quality of life. This study aimed to determine the independent association between AED use and self-reported depression, anxiety, and subjective cognitive impairment in glioma patients. Methods In this multicenter cross-sectional study, depression and anxiety were assessed with the HADS and subjective cognitive impairment was assessed with the MOS-CFS. Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed on all potential confounding predictor variables. Potential confounders were included in the multivariable analyses if p-value Results A total of 272 patients were included. Prevalence of depression differed significantly between patients not using (10%) and using AEDs (21%, unadjusted Odds Ratio [uOR] = 2.29 [95%CI 1.05–4.97], p = 0.037), but after correction for confounders the statistical significant difference was no longer apparent (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.94 [95%CI 0.83–4.50], p = 0.125). Prevalences of anxiety (aOR = 1.17 [95%CI 0.59–2.29], p = 0.659) and subjective cognitive impairment (aOR = 0.83 [95%CI 0.34–2.04], p = 0.684) did not differ significantly before or after adjustment of confounders between patients not using (19% and 16%, respectively) and using AEDs (26% and 21%, respectively). Conclusions Our results indicate AED use was not independently associated with concurrent depression, anxiety, or subjective cognitive impairment in glioma patients. Alternative factors seem to have a greater contribution to the risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms in glioma patients.

To further advance assessment of patient-reported outcomes, the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group has developed computerized adaptive test (CAT) versions of all EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales/items. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate an item bank for CAT measurement of insomnia (CAT-SL). In line with the EORTC guidelines, the developmental process comprised four phases: (I) defining the concept insomnia and literature search, (II) selection and formulation of new items, (III) pre-testing and (IV) field-testing, including psychometric analyses of the final item bank. In phase I, the literature search identified 155 items that were compatible with our conceptualisation of insomnia, including both quantity and quality of sleep. In phase II, following a multistep-approach, this number was reduced to 15 candidate items. Pre-testing of these items in cancer patients (phase III) resulted in an item list of 14 items, which were field-tested among 1094 patients in phase IV. Psychometric evaluations showed that eight items could be retained in a unidimensional model. The final item bank yielded greater measurement precision than the original QLQ-C30 insomnia item. It was estimated that administering two or more items from the insomnia item bank with CAT results in a saving in sample size between approximately 15–25%. The 8-item EORTC CAT-SL item bank facilitates precise and efficient measurement of insomnia as part of the EORTC CAT system of health-related quality life assessment in both clinical research and practice.

Background Neurocognitive impairments are common among brain tumor patients, and may impact patients’ awareness of performance in instrumental activities in daily life (IADL). We examined differences between patient- and proxy-reported assessments of the patient’s IADL, and whether the level of (dis)agreement is associated with neurocognitive impairments. Methods Brain tumor patients and their proxies completed the phase 3 version of the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire measuring IADL, and patients completed six neurocognitive measures. Patient-proxy difference scores in IADL were compared between patients who were defined as neurocognitively impaired (≥2 neurocognitive measures ≥2.0 standard deviations below healthy controls) and non-neurocognitively impaired. With multinomial logistic regression analyses we examined if neurocognitive variables were independently associated with patient-proxy disagreement in IADL ratings. Results Patients (n = 81) did not systematically (P < .01) rate IADL outcomes different than their proxies. Proxies did report more problems on 19/32 individual items and all five scales. This effect was more apparent in dyads with a neurocognitively impaired patient (n = 37), compared to dyads with non-neurocognitively impaired patients (n = 44). Multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that several neurocognitive variables (e.g., cognitive flexibility and verbal fluency) were independently associated with disagreement between patients and proxies on different scales. Conclusion Neurocognitive deficits seem to play a role in the discrepancies between brain tumor patients and their proxies assessment of patient’s level of IADL. Although replication of our results is needed, our findings suggests that caution is warranted in interpreting self-reported IADL by patients with neurocognitive impairment, and that such self-reports should be supplemented with proxy ratings.

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.

Introduction Meningioma is a heterogeneous disease and patients may suffer from long-term tumor- and treatment-related sequelae. To help identify patients at risk for these late effects, we first assessed variables associated with impaired long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and impaired neurocognitive function on group level (i.e. determinants). Next, prediction models were developed to predict the risk for long-term neurocognitive or HRQoL impairment on individual patient-level. Methods Secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional multicenter study with intracranial WHO grade I/II meningioma patients, in which HRQoL (Short-Form 36) and neurocognitive functioning (standardized test battery) were assessed. Multivariable regression models were used to assess determinants for these outcomes corrected for confounders, and to build prediction models, evaluated with C-statistics. Results Data from 190 patients were analyzed (median 9 years after intervention). Main determinants for poor HRQoL or impaired neurocognitive function were patients’ sociodemographic characteristics, surgical complications, reoperation, radiotherapy, presence of edema, and a larger tumor diameter on last MRI. Prediction models with a moderate/good ability to discriminate between individual patients with and without impaired HRQoL (C-statistic 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and neurocognitive function (C-statistic 0.78, 95%CI 0.70 to 0.85) were built. Not all predictors (e.g. tumor location) within these models were also determinants. Conclusions The identified determinants help clinicians to better understand long-term meningioma disease burden. Prediction models can help early identification of individual patients at risk for long-term neurocognitive or HRQoL impairment, facilitating tailored provision of information and allocation of scarce supportive care services to those most likely to benefit.

IntroductionMeningioma 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 analysisTwo 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 disseminationInstitutional 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 numberCOMET study ID 1508

Background IDH1/2 wildtype (IDHwt) glioma WHO grade 2 and 3 patients with pTERT mutation and/or EGFR amplification and/or + 7/−10 chromosome gain/loss have a similar overall survival time as IDHwt glioblastoma patients, and are both considered glioblastoma IDHwt according to the WHO 2021 classification. However, differences in seizure onset have been observed. This study aimed to compare the course of epilepsy in the 2 glioblastoma subtypes. Methods We analyzed epilepsy data of an existing cohort including IDHwt histologically lower-grade glioma WHO grade 2 and 3 with molecular glioblastoma-like profile (IDHwt hLGG) and IDHwt glioblastoma patients. Primary outcome was the incidence proportion of epilepsy during the disease course. Secondary outcomes included, among others, onset of epilepsy, number of seizure days, and antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy. Results Out of 254 patients, 78% (50/64) IDHwt hLGG and 68% (129/190) IDHwt glioblastoma patients developed epilepsy during the disease (P = .121). Epilepsy onset before histopathological diagnosis occurred more frequently in IDHwt hLGG compared to IDHwt glioblastoma patients (90% vs 60%, P Conclusions Although the incidence proportion of epilepsy during the entire disease course is similar, IDHwt hLGG patients show a significantly higher incidence of epilepsy before diagnosis and a significantly longer median time between first seizure and diagnosis compared to IDHwt glioblastoma patients, indicating a distinct clinical course.

OBJECTIVE Patients with skull base meningioma (SBM) often require complex surgery around critical neurovascular structures, placing them at high risk of poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and possibly neurocognitive dysfunction. As the survival of meningioma patients is near normal, long-term neurocognitive and HRQOL outcomes are important to evaluate, including evaluation of the impact of specific tumor location and treatment modalities on these outcomes. METHODS In this multicenter cross-sectional study including patients 5 years or more after their last tumor intervention, Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-BN20 questionnaires were used to assess generic and disease-specific HRQOL. Neurocognitive functioning was assessed with standardized neuropsychological assessment. SBM patient assessments were compared with those of 1) informal caregivers of SBM patients who served as controls and 2) convexity meningioma patients. In addition, the authors compared anterior/middle SBM patients with posterior SBM patients and anterior/middle and posterior SBM patients separately with controls. Multivariable and propensity score regression analyses were performed to correct for possible confounders. RESULTS Patients with SBM (n = 89) with a median follow-up of 9 years after the last intervention did not significantly differ from controls (n = 65) or convexity meningioma patients (n = 84) on generic HRQOL assessment. Statistically significantly but not clinically relevantly better disease-specific HRQOL was found for SBM patients compared with convexity meningioma patients. Anterior/middle SBM patients (n = 62) had significantly and clinically relevantly better HRQOL in SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scores than posterior SBM patients (n = 27): physical role functioning (corrected difference 17.1, 95% CI 0.2–34.0), motor dysfunction (−10.1, 95% CI −17.5 to −2.7), communication deficit (−14.2, 95% CI −22.7 to −5.6), and weakness in both legs (−10.1, 95% CI −18.8 to −1.5). SBM patients whose primary treatment was radiotherapy had lower HRQOL scores compared with SBM patients who underwent surgery on two domains: bodily pain (−33.0, 95% CI −55.2 to −10.9) and vitality (−18.9. 95% CI −33.7 to −4.1). Tumor location and treatment modality did not result in significant differences in neurocognitive functioning, although 44% of SBM patients had deficits in at least one domain. CONCLUSIONS In the long term, SBM patients do not experience significantly more sequelae in HRQOL and neurocognitive functioning than do controls or patients with convexity meningioma. Patients with posterior SBM had poorer HRQOL than anterior/middle SBM patients, and primary treatment with radiotherapy was associated with worse HRQOL. Neurocognitive functioning was not affected by tumor location or treatment modality.

Background This study aimed at investigating antiepileptic drug (AED) prescription preferences in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) among the European neuro-oncology community, the considerations that play a role when initiating AED treatment, the organization of care, and practices with regard to AED withdrawal. Methods A digital survey containing 31 questions about prescription preferences of AEDs was set out among members of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO). Results A total of 198 respondents treating patients with BTRE participated of whom 179 completed the entire survey. Levetiracetam was the first choice in patients with BTRE for almost all respondents (90% [162/181]). Levetiracetam was considered the most effective AED in reducing seizure frequency (72% [131/181]) and having the least adverse effects (48% [87/181]). Common alternatives for levetiracetam as equivalent first choice included lacosamide (33% [59/181]), lamotrigine (22% [40/181]), and valproic acid (21% [38/181]). Most crucial factors to choose a specific AED were potential adverse effects (82% [148/181]) and interactions with antitumor treatments (76% [137/181]). In the majority of patients, neuro-oncologists were involved in the treatment of seizures (73% [132/181])). Other relevant findings were that a minority of respondents ever prescribe AEDs in brain tumor patients without epilepsy solely as prophylaxis (29% [53/181]), but a majority routinely considers complete AED withdrawal in BTRE patients who are seizure-free after antitumor treatment (79% [141/179]). Conclusions Our results show that among European professionals treating patients with BTRE levetiracetam is considered the first choice AED, with the presumed highest efficacy and least adverse effects.

The purpose of this study is to develop a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) questionnaire that captures the full range of physical, mental, and social health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to disease-free cancer survivors. In this phase III study, we pretested the provisional core questionnaire (QLQ-SURV111) and aimed to identify essential and optional scales.We pretested the QLQ-SURV111 in 492 cancer survivors from 17 countries with one of 11 cancer diagnoses. We applied the EORTC QLG decision rules and employed factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis to assess and, where necessary, modify the hypothesized questionnaire scales. We calculated correlations between the survivorship scales and the QLQ-C30 summary score and carried out a Delphi survey among healthcare professionals, patient representatives, and cancer researchers to distinguish between essential and optional scales.Fifty-four percent of the sample was male, mean age was 60 years, and, on average, time since completion of treatment was 3.8 years. Eleven items were excluded, resulting in the QLQ-SURV100, with 12 functional and 9 symptom scales, a symptom checklist, 4 single items, and 10 conditional items. The essential survivorship scales consist of 73 items.The QLQ-SURV100 has been developed to assess comprehensively the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors. It includes essential and optional scales and will be validated further in an international phase IV study.The availability of this questionnaire will facilitate a standardized and robust assessment of the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND Uncontrolled seizures on antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy are common in glioma patients and about a third of patients need an add-on AED. The aim of this study was to determine whether levetiracetam combined with valproic acid (LEV+VPA), a commonly prescribed duotherapy, was more effective than other duotherapy combinations, which included either LEV or VPA, in glioma patients. METHODS In this multicenter observational cohort study, data of patients with a diffuse grade 2-4 glioma and having uncontrolled seizures on their first-line monotherapy LEV or VPA, was retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was treatment failure (i.e. replacement by or addition of a new AED, or withdrawal of an AED) for any reason. Secondary outcomes included: 1) treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures; and 2) treatment failure due to adverse effects. Time to treatment failure was estimated with multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, from moment of AED duotherapy treatment initiation. The maximum duration of follow-up was 36 months. RESULTS A total of 355 patients received AED duotherapy after they showed treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures on monotherapy. LEV+VPA was prescribed in 66% (236/355) and other AED duotherapy combinations including LEV or VPA in 34% (119/355) of patients. Patients using other duotherapy versus LEV+VPA had higher risk of treatment failure for any reason (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR]=1.50 [95%CI=1.07-2.12], p=0.020), due to uncontrolled seizures (csHR=1.73 [95%CI=1.10-2.73], p=0.018), but not due to adverse effects (csHR=0.88 [95%CI=0.47-1.67]), p=0.703). CONCLUSIONS This observational cohort study showed that LEV+VPA has better efficacy than other AED combinations with either LEV or VPA, but toxicity was similar in the two groups.

Background Comprehensive data on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AED) treatment in glioma patients with epilepsy are currently lacking. In this systematic review, we specifically assessed the efficacy of AEDs in patients with a grade II-IV glioma. Methods Electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to June 2020. Three different outcomes for both mono- and polytherapy were extracted from all eligible articles: (i) seizure freedom; (ii) ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency; and (iii) treatment failure. Weighted averages (WA) were calculated for outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Results A total of 66 studies were included. Regarding the individual outcomes on the efficacy of monotherapy, the highest seizure freedom rate at 6 months was with phenytoin (WA = 72%) while at 12-month pregabalin (WA = 75%) and levetiracetam (WA = 74%) showed highest efficacy. Concerning ≥50% seizure reduction rates, levetiracetam showed highest efficacy at 6 and 12 months (WAs of 82% and 97%, respectively). However, treatment failure rates at 12 months were highest for phenytoin (WA = 34%) and pregabalin (41%). When comparing the described polytherapy combinations with follow-up of ≥6 months, levetiracetam combined with phenytoin was most effective followed by levetiracetam combined with valproic acid. Conclusion Given the heterogeneous patient populations and the low scientific quality across the different studies, seizure rates need to be interpreted with caution. Based on the current limited evidence, with the ranking of AEDs being confined to the AEDs studied, levetiracetam, phenytoin, and pregabalin seem to be most effective as AED monotherapy in glioma patients with epilepsy, with levetiracetam showing the lowest treatment failure rate, compared to the other AEDs studied.

BACKGROUND Neurocognitive deficits are common among brain tumour patients, and may impact on patient awareness of deficits in instrumental activities in daily life (IADL). This study aimed to examine differences between patient-reported and proxy-reported assessments of the patient’s performance of IADL, and whether the level of (dis)agreement is associated with neurocognitive deficits. MATERIAL AND METHODS A phase III EORTC questionnaire measuring IADL in brain tumour patients (EORTC IADL-BN32) and six neurocognitive test measures were administered as part of a larger multicentre international study designed to develop a brain tumour specific IADL questionnaire. Bland-Altman plots and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to evaluated patient- and proxy-reported IADL on a group level. Subsequently, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare patient-proxy difference scores (patient IADL score - their proxy IADL score) between patients who were considered clearly neurocognitively impaired (≥2 neurocognitive test measures; ≤2.0 SD below healthy controls) and patients who were not. Furthermore, multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to examined which sociodemgraphic, clinical, and particularly neurocognitive variables were independently associated with patients and proxies differing in their evaluation of patient’s IADL. RESULTS Patients (N=81) and proxies (N=81), on group level, did not significantly differ on either the IADL individual item or scale scores. However, significant differences were found on patient-proxy difference scores between patients who were (N=37) and were not (N=44) considered clearly neurocognitively impaired for 10/32 individual items and one of the scales (i.e. Scale 4: Administrative tasks), all showing that the proxies of clearly neurocognitively impaired patients reported more problems relative to the patients themselves, compared to proxies of patients not clearly neurocognitively impaired. Furthermore, for each scale, a neurocognitive variable, either impaired information processing speed, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency or the number of neurocognitive test measures impaired, was found to be independently associated with proxies reporting more problems. For 4/5 scales, a clinical variable was additionally independently associated with proxies reporting more problems. Only one variable was independently associated with patient reporting more problems, namely being in active treatment was found to be associated with patients reporting more problems on Scale 4: Administrative tasks. CONCLUSION Results imply a consistent trend of clearly neurocognitively impaired patients underreporting problems with IADL compared to their proxies. It would therefore be advised to administer both the patient- and proxy-version of the EORTC IADL-BN32, particularly if neurocognitive deficits are presumed.

BACKGROUND Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2–4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity. RESULTS We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI: 26–51%) versus 30% (95%CI: 20–41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.46–1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide. CONCLUSION Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.

Background Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation programs for brain tumor patients are not widely available, despite the high need. We aimed to evaluate the effects of a tablet-based cognitive rehabilitation program on cognitive performance, cognitive complaints, fatigue, and psychological distress in primary brain tumor patients following neurosurgery. Also, attrition, adherence and patient satisfaction with the program were evaluated. Methods Adults with presumed low-grade glioma and meningioma were recruited before surgery. Three months thereafter, participants were allocated to the intervention group or waiting-list control group using minimization. The 10-week eHealth app ReMind, based on the effective face-to-face intervention, consisted of psychoeducation, strategy-training and attention retraining. Performance-based cognitive outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were assessed before surgery and 3, 6 and 12 months thereafter. Mean scores, percentages of cognitively impaired individuals and reliable change indices (RCIs) were compared between groups. Results Sixty-two out of 183 eligible patients were randomized. Of the people who declined, 56% reported that participation would to be too burdensome. All participants found a tablet-app suitable for delivery of cognitive rehabilitation and 90% rated the program as “good” or “excellent”. Performance-based cognitive outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not significantly differ in group means over time nor RCIs between the intervention (final n = 20) and control group (final n = 25). Conclusions Recruitment at this early stage was difficult, resulting in limited statistical power. No significant effects were demonstrated, while adherence and satisfaction with the eHealth program were good. In clinical practice, ReMind may be helpful, if timing would be adapted to patients’ needs.

Background Women represent an increasing proportion of the overall workforce in medicine but are underrepresented in leadership roles. Methods To explore gender inequalities and challenges in career opportunities, a web-based survey was conducted among the membership of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology and the Brain Tumor Group of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Results A total of 228 colleagues responded to the survey: 129 women (median age 45 years; range, 25-66 years) and 99 men (median age 48 years; range, 24-81 years); 153 participants (67%) were married and 157 participants (69%) had at least 1 child. Women less often declared being married (60% vs 77%, P = .007) or having a child (63% vs 77%, P = .024). Men more frequently had a full-time position (88% vs 75%, P = .036). Women and men both perceived an underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Half of participants agreed that the most important challenges for women are leading a team and obtaining a faculty position. Fewer women than men would accept such a position (42% vs 56%). The main reasons were limited time for career and an inappropriate work and life balance. Women specifically cited negative discrimination, limited opportunities, and lack of self-confidence. Discrimination of women at work was perceived by 64% of women vs 47% of men (P = .003). Conclusion Women are perceived as experiencing more difficulties in acquiring a leadership position. Personal preferences may account for an underrepresentation of women in leadership positions, but perceived gender inequalities extend beyond disparities of access to leadership.

Clinical trials of treatments for high-grade gliomas have traditionally relied on measures of response or time-dependent metrics; however, these endpoints have limitations because they do not characterise the functional or symptomatic effect of the condition on the person. Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy is needed because of the substantial burden of symptoms and impaired functioning in this patient population. The US National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to review previous recommendations and existing PRO measures of symptoms and function that can be applied to current trials and clinical practice for high-grade gliomas. Measures were assessed for relevance, relationship to disease and therapy, sensitivity to change, psychometric properties, response format, patient acceptability, and use of self-report. The group also relied on patient input including the results of an online survey, a literature review on available clinical outcomes, expert opinion, and alignment with work done by other organisations. A core set of priority constructs was proposed that allows more comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances efforts to improve the measurement of these core clinical outcomes. The proposed set of constructs was then presented to the Society for Neuro-Oncology Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group and feedback was solicited.

Background The Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy (cIMPACT-NOW) has recommended that isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 wildtype (IDH1/2wt) diffuse lower-grade gliomas (LGGs) World Health Organization (WHO) grade II or III that present with (i) a telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutation (pTERTmt), and/or (ii) gain of chromosome 7 combined with loss of chromosome 10, and/or (iii) epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification should be reclassified as diffuse astrocytic glioma, IDH1/2 wildtype, with molecular features of glioblastoma, WHO grade IV (IDH1/2wt astrocytomas WHO IV). This paper describes the overall survival (OS) of IDH1/2wt astrocytoma WHO IV patients, and more in detail patients with tumors with pTERTmt only. Methods In this retrospective multicenter study, we compared the OS of 71 IDH1/2wt astrocytomas WHO IV patients, with radiological characteristics of LGGs, with the OS of 197 IDH1/2wt glioblastoma patients. Moreover, we compared the OS of 22 pTERTmt only astrocytoma patients with the OS of the IDH1/2wt glioblastoma patients. Results Median OS was similar for IDH1/2wt astrocytoma WHO IV patients (23.8 mo) and IDH1/2wt glioblastoma patients (19.2 mo) (Cox proportional hazards model: hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% CI: 0.85–1.88, P = 0.242). OS was also similar in patients with IDH1/2wt astrocytomas WHO IV, pTERTmt only, and IDH1/2wt glioblastomas (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.64–2.10, P = 0.641). Conclusions The presented data confirm the cIMPACT-NOW recommendation and we propose that IDH1/2wt astrocytomas WHO IV in the absence of other qualifying mutations should be classified as IDH1/2wt glioblastomas.

Background: The impact of rituximab on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in primary central nervous system lymphoma patients is not well known. We determined the impact of rituximab added to standard high-dose methotrexate-based treatment on HRQoL in patients in a large randomised trial. Patients and methods: Patients from a large phase III trial (HOVON 105/ALLG NHL 24), randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy with or without rituximab and followed by 30 Gy whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in patients ≤60 years, completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 questionnaires before and during treatment, and up to 24 months of follow-up or progression. Differences between treatment arms over time in global health status, role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, and motor dysfunction were assessed. Differences ≥10 points were deemed clinically relevant. The effect of WBRT on HRQoL was analysed in irradiated patients. Results: A total of 160/175 patients eligible for the HRQoL study completed at least one questionnaire and were included. Over time, scores improved statistically significantly and were clinically relevant in both arms. Between arms, there were no differences on any scale (range: −3.8 to +4.0). Scores on all scales were improved to a clinically relevant extent at 12 and 24 months compared with baseline in both arms, except for fatigue and motor dysfunction at 12 months (−7.4 and −8.8, respectively). In irradiated patients (n = 59), scores in all preselected scales, except motor dysfunction, remained stable up to 24 months compared with shortly after WBRT, overall mean difference ranging between 0.02 and 4.570. Conclusion: Compared with baseline, treatment resulted in improved HRQoL scores. The addition of rituximab to standard chemotherapy did not impact HRQoL over time. WBRT did not result in deterioration of HRQoL in the first 2 years.

Objective: Prognostic value of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data may be important to inform patients in clinical practice and to guide clinical decision-making. Our study investigated the added prognostic value of HRQoL for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in a large heterogeneous sample of glioma patients, besides known prognostic factors.Methods: We included individual baseline data from previously published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in glioma patients in which HRQoL was assessed through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Multivariable Cox regression models (stratified for newly diagnosed versus recurrent disease) were constructed, first with clinical variables (age, sex, tumour type, performance status, allocated treatment and extent of resection) only and subsequently with HRQoL variables added, separately for OS and PFS. The added prognostic value of HRQoL was calculated using C-indices.Results: Baseline HRQoL and clinical data from 15 RCTs were included, comprising 5217 patients. In the model including both clinical and HRQoL variables, better cognitive and role functioning and less motor dysfunction were independently associated with longer OS, whereas better role and cognitive functioning, less nausea and vomiting and more appetite loss were independently associated with prolonged PFS. However, C-indices indicated only a small prognostic improvement of the models for OS and PFS when adding HRQoL to the clinical prognostic variables (+1.1% for OS and +.7% for PFS).Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that several baseline HRQoL variables are independently prognostic for OS and PFS, yet the added value of HRQoL to the known clinical prognostic variables was small. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND As a first step to reach consensus on the key constructs and outcomes in neuro-oncology caregiver research, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the constructs that are being evaluated in research studies and how these have been assessed. METHODS All peer-reviewed publications with primary data reporting on outcomes of family caregivers of adult primary brain tumour patients were eligible. Electronic databases PubMed/ Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Emcare, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched up to September 2021. Using Covidence, title and abstract screening, full text review, and data extraction were done by two researchers independently, with a third guiding consensus. Constructs as reported in each study, and how these were assessed were the primary result. RESULTS Searches yielded 1090 unique records, with 213 remaining after title/abstract screening. Of these, 157 publications met inclusion criteria, comprising 120 unique studies. These originated from 18 countries and were published between 1996-2022. Most were observational (75%) cross-sectional (61%) studies, reporting on quantitative methods (62%). Twenty-seven different constructs were assessed and mapped along the Caregiver Health Model categories: caregiver health, needs, tasks, beliefs and attitudes, and environment. Seventeen questionnaires were used > 2 times to measure the same construct, with the vast majority of questionnaires only used across one or two studies. DISCUSSION Neuro-oncology caregiving research is a field gaining traction, but lags behind in clear definition of key constructs, and consistency in assessment of these constructs. Developing consensus or guidance will improve comparability of studies, meta-analyses, and advance the science more quickly.

BACKGROUND About 10% of glioma patients with epilepsy need antiseizure medication (ASM) tripletherapy due to refractory epilepsy. This study aimed to determine whether levetiracetam combined with valproic acid and clobazam (LEV+VPA+CLB), a commonly prescribed tripletherapy, has favorable effectiveness compared to other tripletherapy combinations in glioma patients. METHODS In this multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, the primary outcome was to estimate the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason, from initiation of ASM tripletherapy. Secondary outcomes included cumulative incidences of: 1) treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures; 2) treatment failure due to adverse effects; and 3) recurrent seizure. Maximum duration of follow-up was 36 months. RESULTS Out of n=1435 patients in the original cohort, n=90 patients received ASM tripletherapy after second-line ASM treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures. LEV+VPA+CLB was prescribed to 48% (43/90) and other ASM tripletherapy to 52% (47/90) patients. The cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason of LEV+VPA+CLB did not significantly differ from other tripletherapy (12 months: 47% [95%CI, 31-62%] versus 42% [95%CI, 27-56%], p=0.892). No statistical significant differences for treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (12 months: 12% [95%CI, 4-25%] versus 18% [95%CI, 8-30%], p=0.445), due to adverse effects (12 months: 22% [95%CI, 11-36%] versus 15% [95%CI, 7-27%], p=0.446), or recurrent seizure (1 month: 65% [95%CI, 48-78%] versus 63% [95%CI, 47-75%], p=0.911) were found. CONCLUSIONS LEV+VPA+CLB showed equivalent effectiveness compared to other ASM tripletherapy combinations in glioma patients.

AIMS Trial registration supports unbiased reporting of research studies. Despite inconsistent use globally and sub-optimal completeness, registration is associated with publication of the same outcomes as defined in trial protocols, though these are not necessarily reported in published results. In the core outcomes in brain tumour trials (COBra) study a registry review was undertaken, alongside a systematic review of qualitative literature and semi-structured interviews, to develop a core outcome set (COS) outcome longlist. The study aims to identify all outcomes reported across all glioma trial registration data. METHOD Phase 3 interventional glioma trials involving patients aged 18 and over, registered on clinicaltrials.gov or the ISRCTN registry were included. Two researchers independently searched the databases and registered data and available protocols were retrieved. Two reviewers independently extracted basic trial data including primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes were categorised according to an ontology developed through literature review. RESULTS 91 trials were identified. Primary outcome categories reported were survival (84%), disease activity (14%), symptoms (4%), adverse events (3%) and resource use (1%). Secondary outcome categories reported were survival (60%), adverse events (52%), quality of life (QoL, 41%), disease activity (30%), symptoms (20%), function (12%), resource use (7%), health status (7%), and economic (3%). The review contributed 15 unique outcomes to the final outcome longlist of 35. CONCLUSION Trial registries represent a pragmatic solution in COS development and enabled identification of outcomes not present in other data sources. Under half of registered glioma studies included QoL outcomes; a small minority included functional outcomes or economic evaluation.