Raymond Y Huang1, Prashin Unadkat1, Wenya Linda Bi2, Elizabeth George1, Matthias Preusser3, Jay D McCracken4, Joseph R Keen5, William L Read4, Jeffrey J Olson4, Katharina Seystahl6, Emilie Le Rhun7,8, Ulrich Roelcke9, Susanne Koeppen10, Julia Furtner11, Michael Weller6, Jeffrey J Raizer12, David Schiff13,14,15, Patrick Y Wen16. 1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Clinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Medical University Vienna‒General Hospital, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 7. University of Lille, Lille, France; Inserm, U-1192, Lille, France; CHU Lille, General and Stereotaxic Neurosurgery Service, Lille, France. 8. Oscar Lambret Center, Neurology, Medical Oncology Department, Lille, France. 9. Department of Neurology and Brain Tumor Center Cantonal Hospital, Aarau, Switzerland. 10. Department of Neurology Clinic, Essen Medical Center, Essen, Germany. 11. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 12. Medical Neuro-Oncology, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 13. Department of Neurology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 14. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 15. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 16. Center For Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumors in adults. Due to their variable growth rates and irregular tumor shapes, response assessment in clinical trials remains challenging and no standard criteria have been defined. We evaluated 1D, 2D, and volume imaging criteria to assess whether a volumetric approach might be a superior surrogate for overall survival (OS). METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, we evaluated the clinical and imaging data of 93 patients with recurrent meningiomas treated with pharmacotherapy. One-dimensional (1D), 2D, and volumetric measurements of enhancing tumor on pre- and post-treatment MRI were compared at 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship between each imaging criterion and OS. RESULTS: The median age of the patient cohort is 51 years (range 12-88), with 14 World Health Organization (WHO) grade I, 53 WHO grade II, and 26 WHO grade III meningiomas. Volumetric increase of 40% and unidimensional increase by 10 mm at 6 months and 12 months provided the strongest association with overall survival (HR = 2.58 and 3.24 respectively, p<0.01). Setting a volume change threshold above 40% did not correlate with survival. The interobserver agreement of 1D, 2D, and volume criteria is only moderate (kappa = 0.49, 0.46, 0.52, respectively). None of the criteria based on tumor size reduction were associated with OS (P > 0.09). CONCLUSION: Compared with 1D (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1) and 2D (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) approaches, volumetric criteria for tumor progression has a stronger association with OS, although the differences were only modest. The interobserver variability is moderate for all 3 methods. Further validation of these findings in an independent patient cohort is needed.
BACKGROUND:Meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumors in adults. Due to their variable growth rates and irregular tumor shapes, response assessment in clinical trials remains challenging and no standard criteria have been defined. We evaluated 1D, 2D, and volume imaging criteria to assess whether a volumetric approach might be a superior surrogate for overall survival (OS). METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, we evaluated the clinical and imaging data of 93 patients with recurrent meningiomas treated with pharmacotherapy. One-dimensional (1D), 2D, and volumetric measurements of enhancing tumor on pre- and post-treatment MRI were compared at 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship between each imaging criterion and OS. RESULTS: The median age of the patient cohort is 51 years (range 12-88), with 14 World Health Organization (WHO) grade I, 53 WHO grade II, and 26 WHO grade III meningiomas. Volumetric increase of 40% and unidimensional increase by 10 mm at 6 months and 12 months provided the strongest association with overall survival (HR = 2.58 and 3.24 respectively, p<0.01). Setting a volume change threshold above 40% did not correlate with survival. The interobserver agreement of 1D, 2D, and volume criteria is only moderate (kappa = 0.49, 0.46, 0.52, respectively). None of the criteria based on tumor size reduction were associated with OS (P > 0.09). CONCLUSION: Compared with 1D (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1) and 2D (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) approaches, volumetric criteria for tumor progression has a stronger association with OS, although the differences were only modest. The interobserver variability is moderate for all 3 methods. Further validation of these findings in an independent patient cohort is needed.
Authors: Nancy U Lin; Eudocia Q Lee; Hidefumi Aoyama; Igor J Barani; Daniel P Barboriak; Brigitta G Baumert; Martin Bendszus; Paul D Brown; D Ross Camidge; Susan M Chang; Janet Dancey; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Laurie E Gaspar; Gordon J Harris; F Stephen Hodi; Steven N Kalkanis; Mark E Linskey; David R Macdonald; Kim Margolin; Minesh P Mehta; David Schiff; Riccardo Soffietti; John H Suh; Martin J van den Bent; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Thomas Kaley; Igor Barani; Marc Chamberlain; Michael McDermott; Katherine Panageas; Jeffrey Raizer; Leland Rogers; David Schiff; Michael Vogelbaum; Damien Weber; Patrick Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Kilian M Pohl; Ender Konukoglu; Sebastian Novellas; Nicholas Ayache; Andriy Fedorov; Ion-Florin Talos; Alexandra Golby; William M Wells; Ron Kikinis; Peter M Black Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jeffrey J Raizer; Sean A Grimm; Alfred Rademaker; James P Chandler; Kenji Muro; Irene Helenowski; Laurie Rice; Katie McCarthy; Sandra K Johnston; Maciej M Mrugala; Marc Chamberlain Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Peter Liao; Toni Vecchione-Koval; Yingli Wolinsky; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Julia Furtner; Veronika Schöpf; Katharina Seystahl; Emilie Le Rhun; Roberta Rudà; Ulrich Roelcke; Susanne Koeppen; Anna Sophie Berghoff; Christine Marosi; Paul Clement; Marina Faedi; Colin Watts; Wolfgang Wick; Riccardo Soffietti; Michael Weller; Matthias Preusser Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Shun Zhang; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jacquelyn Marion Knapp; Christina M Zecca; Diana He; Rohan Ramakrishna; Rajiv S Magge; David J Pisapia; Howard Alan Fine; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Yize Zhao; Linda A Heier; Yi Wang; Ilhami Kovanlikaya Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: Jonadab Dos Santos Silva; Cláudia Abib Schreiner; Lázaro de Lima; Carlos Eduardo Pinheiro Leal Brigido; Christopher D Wilson; Luke McVeigh; Joseph Acchiardo; José Alberto Landeiro; Marcus André Acioly; Aaron Cohen-Gadol Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Anna S Berghoff; Thomas Hielscher; Gerda Ricken; Julia Furtner; Daniel Schrimpf; Georg Widhalm; Ursula Rajky; Christine Marosi; Johannes A Hainfellner; Andreas von Deimling; Felix Sahm; Matthias Preusser Journal: Brain Pathol Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 6.508