Search

Background Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the “Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials” (COMET) initiative. Results Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

Background The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the “Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials” (COMET) initiative. Results Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: The European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN) aims to organize high-quality healthcare throughout Europe, including care for pituitary adenoma patients. As surgery is the mainstay of treatment, we aimed to describe the current surgical practice and published surgical outcomes of pituitary adenoma within Endo-ERN. DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting surgical outcomes of pituitary adenoma patients within Endo-ERN MTG6 pituitary reference centers between 2010 and 2019. A survey was completed by reference centers on their current surgical practice. RESULTS: A total of 18 out of 43 (42%) reference centers located in 7 of the 20 (35%) MTG6-represented countries published 48 articles. Remission rates were 50% (95% CI: 42-59) for patients with acromegaly, 68% (95% CI: 60-75) for Cushing's disease, and 53% (95% CI: 39-66%) for prolactinoma. Gross total resection was achieved in 49% (95% CI: 37-61%) of patients and visual improvement in 78% (95% CI: 68-87). Mortality, hemorrhage, and carotid injury occurred in less than 1% of patients. New-onset hypopituitarism occurred in 16% (95% CI: 11-23), transient diabetes insipidus in 12% (95% CI: 6-21), permanent diabetes insipidus in 4% (95% CI: 3-6), syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) in 9% (95% CI: 5-14), severe epistaxis in 2% (95% CI: 0-4), and cerebrospinal fluid leak in 4% (95% CI: 2-6). Thirty-five (81%) centers completed the survey: 54% were operated endoscopically and 57% were together with an ENT surgeon. CONCLUSION: The results of this study could be used as a first benchmark for the outcomes of pituitary adenoma surgery within Endo-ERN. However, the heterogeneity between studies in the reporting of outcomes hampers comparability and warrants outcome collection through registries.

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 (SDa=a2.0) year 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.

Objective: The European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN) aims to organize high-quality healthcare throughout Europe, including care for pituitary adenoma patients. As surgery is the mainstay of treatment, we aimed to describe the current surgical practice and published surgical outcomes of pituitary adenoma within Endo-ERN. Design and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting surgical outcomes of pituitary adenoma patients within Endo-ERN MTG6 pituitary reference centers between 2010 and 2019. A survey was completed by reference centers on their current surgical practice. Results: A total of 18 out of 43 (42%) reference centers located in 7 of the 20 (35%) MTG6- represented countries published 48 articles. Remission rates were 50% (95% CI: 42–59) for patients with acromegaly, 68% (95% CI: 60–75) for Cushing’s disease, and 53% (95% CI: 39–66%) for prolactinoma. Gross total resection was achieved in 49% (95% CI: 37–61%) of patients and visual improvement in 78% (95% CI: 68–87). Mortality, hemorrhage, and carotid injury occurred in less than 1% of patients. New-onset hypopituitarism occurred in 16% (95% CI: 11–23), transient diabetes insipidus in 12% (95% CI: 6–21), permanent diabetes insipidus in 4% (95% CI: 3–6), syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) in 9% (95% CI: 5–14), severe epistaxis in 2% (95% CI: 0–4), and cerebrospinal fluid leak in 4% (95% CI: 2–6). Thirty-five (81%) centers completed the survey: 54% were operated endoscopically and 57% were together with an ENT surgeon. Conclusion: The results of this study could be used as a first benchmark for the outcomes of pituitary adenoma surgery within Endo-ERN. However, the heterogeneity between studies in the reporting of outcomes hampers comparability and warrants outcome collection through registries.

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.

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 surv