Literature DB >> 25577400

Evaluation of RANO response criteria compared to clinician evaluation in WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma: implications for clinical trial reporting and patterns of failure.

Tomas Kazda1, John G Hardie, Deanna H Pafundi, Timothy J Kaufmann, Debra H Brinkmann, Nadia N Laack.   

Abstract

The utility of current response criteria has not been established in anaplastic astrocytoma (AA). We retrospectively reviewed MR images for 20 patients with AA and compared RANO-based approaches to clinician impression described as follow: (1) standard RANO-based criteria met by growth of or development of new enhancing lesion (RANO-C), (2) RANO criteria for progression based on significant FLAIR increase (RANO-F) and (3) clinical progression usually resulting in change of treatment (Clinical). Patterns of failure (POF) were analyzed utilizing all proposed progression MRIs fused with the patients' radiotherapy treatment plan. With an overall median survival of 24.3 months, development of new enhancing lesion was the most common determinant of progression (70 % of patients). Median time to RANO-C, RANO-F and Clinical progression was 9.2, 9.2 and 11.76 months respectively. RANO-C and RANO-F preceded Clinical in 70 and 55 % of patients, respectively. In six patients (30 %) Clinical was concurrent with RANO-F; four of six also met RANO-C. POF for FLAIR component differed based on time point used to determine progression. FLAIR POF was more often marginal or distant when progression was defined clinically compared to either RANO-C or RANO-F criteria. Central POF based on FLAIR at Clinical determination of progression was associated with significantly poorer OS (9.8 vs. 34.4 months). Clinical progression occurs later than progression determined by RANO-based criteria. Evaluation of POF based on FLAIR signal abnormality at the time of clinical progression suggests central recurrences are associated with worse survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25577400      PMCID: PMC4372724          DOI: 10.1007/s11060-014-1703-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurooncol        ISSN: 0167-594X            Impact factor:   4.130


  17 in total

1.  Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of response to chemotherapy in glioma.

Authors:  M J Vos; B M J Uitdehaag; F Barkhof; J J Heimans; H C Baayen; W Boogerd; J A Castelijns; P H M Elkhuizen; T J Postma
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2003-03-11       Impact factor: 9.910

2.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group.

Authors:  Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma.

Authors:  D R Macdonald; T L Cascino; S C Schold; J G Cairncross
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Failure pattern following complete resection plus radiotherapy and temozolomide is at the resection margin in patients with glioblastoma.

Authors:  Kevin Petrecca; Marie-Christine Guiot; Valerie Panet-Raymond; Luis Souhami
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 6.  Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas.

Authors:  M J van den Bent; J S Wefel; D Schiff; M J B Taphoorn; K Jaeckle; L Junck; T Armstrong; A Choucair; A D Waldman; T Gorlia; M Chamberlain; B G Baumert; M A Vogelbaum; D R Macdonald; D A Reardon; P Y Wen; S M Chang; A H Jacobs
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Anaplastic astrocytomas: biology and treatment.

Authors:  Marc C Chamberlain; Sajeel A Chowdhary; Michael J Glantz
Journal:  Expert Rev Neurother       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.618

8.  Edema control by cediranib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted kinase inhibitor, prolongs survival despite persistent brain tumor growth in mice.

Authors:  Walid S Kamoun; Carsten D Ley; Christian T Farrar; Annique M Duyverman; Johanna Lahdenranta; Delphine A Lacorre; Tracy T Batchelor; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Dan G Duda; Lance L Munn; Dai Fukumura; A Gregory Sorensen; Rakesh K Jain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-03-30       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Six-month progression-free survival as an alternative primary efficacy endpoint to overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients receiving temozolomide.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Nicholas Butowski; Jennifer L Clarke; Michael Prados
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 12.300

10.  The impact of concurrent temozolomide with adjuvant radiation and IDH mutation status among patients with anaplastic astrocytoma.

Authors:  Sani H Kizilbash; Caterina Giannini; Jesse S Voss; Paul A Decker; Robert B Jenkins; John Hardie; Nadia N Laack; Ian F Parney; Joon H Uhm; Jan C Buckner
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 4.506

View more
  5 in total

1.  Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria, contrast enhancement and perfusion MRI for assessing progression in glioblastoma.

Authors:  Fatima Tensaouti; Jonathan Khalifa; Amélie Lusque; Benjamin Plas; Jean Albert Lotterie; Isabelle Berry; Anne Laprie; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal; Vincent Lubrano
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 2.  Standard clinical approaches and emerging modalities for glioblastoma imaging.

Authors:  Joshua D Bernstock; Sam E Gary; Neil Klinger; Pablo A Valdes; Walid Ibn Essayed; Hannah E Olsen; Gustavo Chagoya; Galal Elsayed; Daisuke Yamashita; Patrick Schuss; Florian A Gessler; Pier Paolo Peruzzi; Asim K Bag; Gregory K Friedman
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2022-05-26

Review 3.  Metabolic and physiologic magnetic resonance imaging in distinguishing true progression from pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma.

Authors:  Sanjeev Chawla; Sultan Bukhari; Omar M Afridi; Sumei Wang; Santosh K Yadav; Hamed Akbari; Gaurav Verma; Kavindra Nath; Mohammad Haris; Stephen Bagley; Christos Davatzikos; Laurie A Loevner; Suyash Mohan
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 4.478

4.  Recurrence patterns after maximal surgical resection and postoperative radiotherapy in anaplastic gliomas according to the new 2016 WHO classification.

Authors:  Jung Ho Im; Je Beom Hong; Se Hoon Kim; Junjeong Choi; Jong Hee Chang; Jaeho Cho; Chang-Ok Suh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Earliest radiological progression in glioblastoma by multidisciplinary consensus review.

Authors:  Roelant S Eijgelaar; Anna M E Bruynzeel; Frank J Lagerwaard; Domenique M J Müller; Freek R Teunissen; Frederik Barkhof; Marcel van Herk; Philip C De Witt Hamer; Marnix G Witte
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 4.130

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.