Timothy H Ung1, Douglas E Ney2, Denise Damek2, Chad G Rusthoven3, A Samy Youssef1, Kevin O Lillehei1, D Ryan Ormond1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale is a standardized objective metric designed to measure neurological function in neuro-oncology. Current neuroradiological evaluation guidelines fail to use specific clinical criteria for progression. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the NANO scale was a reliable assessment tool in glioblastoma (GBM) patients and whether it correlated to survival. METHODS: Our group performed a retrospective review of all patients with newly diagnosed GBM from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, at our institution. We applied the NANO scale, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale, Macdonald criteria, and the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria to patients at the time of diagnosis as well as at 3, 6, and 12 mo. RESULTS: Initial NANO score was correlated with overall survival at time of presentation. NANO progression was correlated with decreased survival in patients at 6 and 12 mo. A decrease in KPS was associated with survival at 3 and 6 mo, an increase in ECOG score was associated only at 3 mo, and radiological evaluation (RANO and Macdonald) was correlated at 3 and 6 mo. Only the NANO scale was associated with patient survival at 1 yr. NANO progression was the only metric that was linked to decreased overall survival when compared to RANO and Macdonald at 6 and 12 mo. CONCLUSION: The NANO scale is specific to neuro-oncology and can be used to assess patients with glioma. This retrospective analysis demonstrates the usefulness of the NANO scale in glioblastoma.
BACKGROUND: The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale is a standardized objective metric designed to measure neurological function in neuro-oncology. Current neuroradiological evaluation guidelines fail to use specific clinical criteria for progression. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the NANO scale was a reliable assessment tool in glioblastoma (GBM) patients and whether it correlated to survival. METHODS: Our group performed a retrospective review of all patients with newly diagnosed GBM from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, at our institution. We applied the NANO scale, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale, Macdonald criteria, and the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria to patients at the time of diagnosis as well as at 3, 6, and 12 mo. RESULTS: Initial NANO score was correlated with overall survival at time of presentation. NANO progression was correlated with decreased survival in patients at 6 and 12 mo. A decrease in KPS was associated with survival at 3 and 6 mo, an increase in ECOG score was associated only at 3 mo, and radiological evaluation (RANO and Macdonald) was correlated at 3 and 6 mo. Only the NANO scale was associated with patient survival at 1 yr. NANO progression was the only metric that was linked to decreased overall survival when compared to RANO and Macdonald at 6 and 12 mo. CONCLUSION: The NANO scale is specific to neuro-oncology and can be used to assess patients with glioma. This retrospective analysis demonstrates the usefulness of the NANO scale in glioblastoma.
Authors: Johannes Kasper; Tim Wende; Michael Karl Fehrenbach; Florian Wilhelmy; Katja Jähne; Clara Frydrychowicz; Gordian Prasse; Jürgen Meixensberger; Felix Arlt Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Tanyeri Barak; Shaurey Vetsa; Arushii Nadar; Lan Jin; Trisha P Gupte; Elena I Fomchenko; Danielle F Miyagishima; Kanat Yalcin; Sagar Vasandani; Evan Gorelick; Amy Y Zhao; Joseph Antonios; Brianna Carusillo Theriault; Nathan Lifton; Neelan Marianayagam; Bulent Omay; Zeynep Erson Omay; Anita Huttner; Declan McGuone; Nicholas A Blondin; Zachary Corbin; Robert K Fulbright; Jennifer Moliterno Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Amir El Rahal; Debora Cipriani; Christian Fung; Marc Hohenhaus; Lukas Sveikata; Jakob Straehle; Mukesch Johannes Shah; Henrik Dieter Heiland; Jürgen Beck; Oliver Schnell Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Johanna Heugenhauser; Malik Galijasevic; Stephanie Mangesius; Georg Goebel; Johanna Buchroithner; Friedrich Erhart; Josef Pichler; Georg Widhalm; Günther Stockhammer; Sarah Iglseder; Christian F Freyschlag; Stefan Oberndorfer; Karin Bordihn; Gord von Campe; Thomas Czech; Birgit Surböck; Tadeja Urbanic Purkart; Christine Marosi; Thomas Felzmann; Martha Nowosielski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-20 Impact factor: 6.639