Interobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis in clinical trials on glioma: a clinician’s perspective

Several studies have provided ample evidence of a clinically significant interobserver variation of the histological diagnosis of glioma. This interobserver variation has an effect on both the typing and grading of glial tumors. Since treatment decisions are based on histological diagnosis and grading, this affects patient care: erroneous classification and grading may result in both over- and undertreatment. In particular, the radiotherapy dosage and the use of chemotherapy are affected by tumor grade and lineage. It also affects the conduct and interpretation of clinical trials on glioma, in particular of studies into grade II and grade III gliomas. Although trials with central pathology review prior to inclusion will result in a more homogeneous patient population, the interpretation and external validity of such trials are still affected by this, and the question whether results of such trials can be generalized to patients diagnosed and treated elsewhere remains to be answered. Although molecular classification may help in typing and grading tumors, as of today this is still in its infancy and unlikely to completely replace histological classification. Routine pathology review in everyday clinical practice should be considered. More objective histological criteria for the grade and lineage of gliomas are urgently needed

Predictive and prognostic markers in neurooncology

Abstract Over the past few years molecular assays have been introduced to aid in typing and grading of gliomas. This is the result of improved understanding of these tumors at the molecular level. In particular, the presence or absence of combined 1p/19 loss in oligodendroglial tumors, epidermal growth factor receptor amplification, epidermal growth factor receptor vIII mutations in grade III tumors and glioblastoma multiforme, and MGMT promoter gene methylation in glioblastoma multiforme are now being used to tailor treatment decisions in patients. However, the application of these tests is far from straightforward, and certain standards are required before any test can be introduced in the daily management of patients. Some of these requirements concern inter-and intratest variability, including whether a test gives the same results if repeated in the same or in another laboratory or when different methodologies are used (e.g. loss of heterozygosity vs fluorescence in situ hybridization and a polymerase chain reaction-based test vs immunohistochemistry). The sensitivity and specificity of a test (or negative and positive predictive value) indicate the likelihood that the test results are positive if the disease is present and the likelihood that the disease is present if the test results are positive. Studies on these test characteristics usually require the presence of a gold standard to which new tests should be compared. Last but not least there is the question of what added value the test has; this criterion determines the clinical usefulness of the assay and why some recently introduced molecular assays need to be scrutinized

Adolescents and Young Adults Living With an Uncertain or Poor Cancer Prognosis:The "New" Lost Tribe

Historically, adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer, diagnosed for the first time at age 15 through 39 years, have often been identified as a "lost tribe" without a medical "home"; neither pediatric nor adult oncology services were able to provide ageappropriate care to this specific group. Internationally, AYA care programs are being established to bridge the gap between the age-defined healthcare worlds and to address the specific needs of AYAs with cancer. However, AYA care programs mostly focus on improving cure rates and addressing survivorship issues, and direct less attention to the unique needs of those living with an uncertain and/or poor cancer prognosis. Additionally, palliative care services are typically poorly equipped to address the age-specific needs of this group. Given that increasingly more AYAs with an uncertain and/or poor cancer prognosis are gaining life years because of novel treatments, and sometimes even face the prospect of longterm disease control, AYA care programs should address the unique palliative care needs of this "new" lost tribe within AYA oncology. This report provides a definition and description of the AYA population living with an uncertain and/or poor cancer prognosis in terms of epidemiologic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics and challenges, and provides perspectives for future research and care initiatives. It also highlights the need to comprehensively examine the experience of AYAs who are living with uncertain and/or poor cancer prognosis to adjust best care practices for this unique group

Temporal muscle thickness is an independent prognostic marker in patients with progressive glioblastoma: translational imaging analysis of the EORTC 26101 trial

BACKGROUND: Temporal muscle thickness (TMT) was described as surrogate marker of skeletal muscle mass. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic relevance of TMT in patients with progressive glioblastoma. METHODS: TMT was analyzed on cranial magnetic resonance images of 596 patients with progression of glioblastoma after radio-chemotherapy enrolled in the EORTC 26101 trial. An optimal TMT cutoff for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was defined in the training cohort (n=260, phase 2). Patients were grouped as "below" or "above" the TMT cutoff and associations with OS and PFS were tested using the Cox model adjusted for important risk factors. Findings were validated in a test cohort (n=308, phase 3). RESULTS: An optimal baseline TMT cutoff of 7.2 mm was obtained in the training cohort for both OS and PFS (AUC=0.64). Univariate analyses estimated a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.70, p<0.0001) for OS and a HR of 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.64, p<0.0001) for PFS for the comparison of training cohort patients above versus below the TMT cutoff. Similar results were obtained in Cox models adjusted for important risk factors with relevance in the trial for OS (HR of 0.54, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.70, p<0.0001) and PFS (HR of 0.47, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.61, p<0.0001). Results were confirmed in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Reduced TMT is an independent negative prognostic parameter in patients with progressive glioblastoma and may help to facilitate patient management by supporting patient stratification for therapeutic interventions or clinical trials

Adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma (CATNON; EORTC study 26053-22054): second interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND The CATNON trial investigated the addition of concurrent, adjuvant, and both current and adjuvant temozolomide to radiotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. The benefit of concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy and relevance of mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes remain unclear. METHODS This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 137 institutions across Australia, Europe, and North America included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally using a minimisation technique to radiotherapy alone (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy), radiotherapy with concurrent oral temozolomide (75 mg/m$^{2}$ per day), radiotherapy with adjuvant oral temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150-200 mg/m$^{2}$ temozolomide given on days 1-5), or radiotherapy with both concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients were stratified by institution, WHO performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, the presence of oligodendroglial elements on microscopy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted by stratification factors at randomisation in the intention-to-treat population. A second interim analysis requested by the independent data monitoring committee was planned when two-thirds of total required events were observed to test superiority or futility of concurrent temozolomide. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00626990. FINDINGS Between Dec 4, 2007, and Sept 11, 2015, 751 patients were randomly assigned (189 to radiotherapy alone, 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide, 186 to radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide, and 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide). Median follow-up was 55·7 months (IQR 41·0-77·3). The second interim analysis declared futility of concurrent temozolomide (median overall survival was 66·9 months [95% CI 45·7-82·3] with concurrent temozolomide vs 60·4 months [45·7-71·5] without concurrent temozolomide; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [99·1% CI 0·73-1·28], p=0·76). By contrast, adjuvant temozolomide improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant temozolomide (median overall survival 82·3 months [95% CI 67·2-116·6] vs 46·9 months [37·9-56·9]; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·52-0·79], p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were haematological, occurring in no patients in the radiotherapy only group, 16 (9%) of 185 patients in the concurrent temozolomide group, and 55 (15%) of 368 patients in both groups with adjuvant temozolomide. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Clinical benefit was dependent on IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status. FUNDING Merck Sharpe & Dohme