Literature DB >> 28453751

The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale: a tool to assess neurologic function for integration into the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria.

Lakshmi Nayak1, Lisa M DeAngelis2, Alba A Brandes3, David M Peereboom4, Evanthia Galanis5, Nancy U Lin6, Riccardo Soffietti7, David R Macdonald8, Marc Chamberlain9, James Perry10, Kurt Jaeckle11, Minesh Mehta12, Roger Stupp13, Alona Muzikansky14, Elena Pentsova2, Timothy Cloughesy15, Fabio M Iwamoto16, Joerg-Christian Tonn17, Michael A Vogelbaum4, Patrick Y Wen1, Martin J van den Bent18, David A Reardon1.   

Abstract

Background: The Macdonald criteria and the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria define radiologic parameters to classify therapeutic outcome among patients with malignant glioma and specify that clinical status must be incorporated and prioritized for overall assessment. But neither provides specific parameters to do so. We hypothesized that a standardized metric to measure neurologic function will permit more effective overall response assessment in neuro-oncology.
Methods: An international group of physicians including neurologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons with expertise in neuro-oncology drafted the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale as an objective and quantifiable metric of neurologic function evaluable during a routine office examination. The scale was subsequently tested in a multicenter study to determine its overall reliability, inter-observer variability, and feasibility.
Results: The NANO scale is a quantifiable evaluation of 9 relevant neurologic domains based on direct observation and testing conducted during routine office visits. The score defines overall response criteria. A prospective, multinational study noted a >90% inter-observer agreement rate with kappa statistic ranging from 0.35 to 0.83 (fair to almost perfect agreement), and a median assessment time of 4 minutes (interquartile range, 3-5).
Conclusion: The NANO scale provides an objective clinician-reported outcome of neurologic function with high inter-observer agreement. It is designed to combine with radiographic assessment to provide an overall assessment of outcome for neuro-oncology patients in clinical trials and in daily practice. Furthermore, it complements existing patient-reported outcomes and cognition testing to combine for a global clinical outcome assessment of well-being among brain tumor patients.
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  brain tumor; neurologic function; outcome; response criteria

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28453751      PMCID: PMC5464449          DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nox029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuro Oncol        ISSN: 1522-8517            Impact factor:   12.300


  33 in total

1.  FURTHER NOTES ON DISABILITY EVALUATION IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, WITH SCALE MODIFICATIONS.

Authors:  J F KURTZKE
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1965-07       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 2.  Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 2: neurocognitive, neurological, and quality-of-life outcomes. A report from the RANO group.

Authors:  Nancy U Lin; Jeffrey S Wefel; Eudocia Q Lee; David Schiff; Martin J van den Bent; Riccardo Soffietti; John H Suh; Michael A Vogelbaum; Minesh P Mehta; Janet Dancey; Mark E Linskey; D Ross Camidge; Hidefumi Aoyama; Paul D Brown; Susan M Chang; Steven N Kalkanis; Igor J Barani; Brigitta G Baumert; Laurie E Gaspar; F Stephen Hodi; David R Macdonald; Patrick Y Wen
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 3.  Outcomes and endpoints in trials of cancer treatment: the past, present, and future.

Authors:  Michelle K Wilson; Katherine Karakasis; Amit M Oza
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 4.  Leptomeningeal metastasis: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology critical review of endpoints and response criteria of published randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Marc Chamberlain; Riccardo Soffietti; Jeffrey Raizer; Roberta Rudà; Dieta Brandsma; Willem Boogerd; Sophie Taillibert; Morris D Groves; Emilie Le Rhun; Larry Junck; Martin van den Bent; Patrick Y Wen; Kurt A Jaeckle
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 5.  Determining priority signs and symptoms for use as clinical outcomes assessments in trials including patients with malignant gliomas: Panel 1 Report.

Authors:  Terri S Armstrong; Allison M Bishof; Paul D Brown; Martin Klein; Martin J B Taphoorn; Christina Theodore-Oklota
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 6.  Report of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition and FDA clinical trials clinical outcome assessment endpoints workshop (October 15, 2014, Bethesda MD).

Authors:  Jennifer L Helfer; Patrick Y Wen; Jaishri Blakeley; Mark R Gilbert; Terri S Armstrong
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 12.300

7.  Interrater reliability of the NIH stroke scale.

Authors:  L B Goldstein; C Bertels; J N Davis
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1989-06

8.  Validation of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor Module (MDASI-BT).

Authors:  T S Armstrong; T Mendoza; I Gning; I Gring; C Coco; M Z Cohen; L Eriksen; Ming-Ann Hsu; M R Gilbert; C Cleeland
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2006-04-06       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 9.  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

Review 10.  Performance status assessment among oncology patients: a review.

Authors:  S T Orr; J Aisner
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1986-12
View more
  52 in total

1.  Early imaging marker of progressing glioblastoma: a window of opportunity.

Authors:  Na Tosha N Gatson; Shane P Bross; Yazmin Odia; Gino J Mongelluzzo; Yirui Hu; Laura Lockard; Jesse J Manikowski; Anand Mahadevan; Syed A J Kazmi; Michel Lacroix; Andrew R Conger; Joseph Vadakara; Lakshmi Nayak; T Linda Chi; Minesh P Mehta; Vinay K Puduvalli
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  NANO, a practical scale for neurologic assessments in patients with brain tumors?

Authors:  Warren Mason
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 12.300

3.  Proposed response assessment and endpoints for meningioma clinical trials: report from the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group.

Authors:  Raymond Y Huang; Wenya Linda Bi; Michael Weller; Thomas Kaley; Jaishri Blakeley; Ian Dunn; Evanthia Galanis; Matthias Preusser; Michael McDermott; Leland Rogers; Jeffrey Raizer; David Schiff; Riccardo Soffietti; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Michael Vogelbaum; Damien Weber; David A Reardon; Patrick Y Wen
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 4.  A selected review of abstracts from the 11th Congress of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO).

Authors:  Marc C Chamberlain
Journal:  CNS Oncol       Date:  2015

5.  Radiation dose response of neurologic symptoms during conformal radiotherapy for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma.

Authors:  Christopher L Tinkle; Kristen Campbell; Yuanyuan Han; Yimei Li; Brandon Bianski; Alberto Broniscer; Raja B Khan; Thomas E Merchant
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Leptomeningeal metastases: how best to assess response.

Authors:  Marc C Chamberlain
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 12.300

7.  How treatment monitoring is influencing treatment decisions in glioblastomas.

Authors:  Martha R Neagu; Raymond Y Huang; David A Reardon; Patrick Y Wen
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.598

Review 8.  The FDA NIH Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools (BEST) resource in neuro-oncology.

Authors:  Daniel N Cagney; Joohee Sul; Raymond Y Huang; Keith L Ligon; Patrick Y Wen; Brian M Alexander
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 9.  Developing Real-world Evidence-Ready Datasets: Time for Clinician Engagement.

Authors:  James M Snyder; Jacob A Pawloski; Laila M Poisson
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 5.075

10.  One decade of glioblastoma multiforme surgery in 342 elderly patients: what have we learned?

Authors:  Dieter Henrik Heiland; Gerrit Haaker; Ralf Watzlawick; Daniel Delev; Waseem Masalha; Pamela Franco; Marcia Machein; Ori Staszewski; Oliver Oelhke; Nils Henrik Nicolay; Oliver Schnell
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 4.130

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.