Na Tosha N Gatson1,2,3,4, Shane P Bross5, Yazmin Odia6, Gino J Mongelluzzo7, Yirui Hu8, Laura Lockard9, Jesse J Manikowski10, Anand Mahadevan10, Syed A J Kazmi11, Michel Lacroix5, Andrew R Conger5,9, Joseph Vadakara10, Lakshmi Nayak12, T Linda Chi13, Minesh P Mehta14, Vinay K Puduvalli15,16. 1. Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. nngatson@outlook.com. 2. Cancer Institute, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. nngatson@outlook.com. 3. Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, 18509, USA. nngatson@outlook.com. 4. Geisinger Medical Center, Neuroscience Institute MC 14-03, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. nngatson@outlook.com. 5. Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. 6. Department of Neuro-Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute/Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, 33176, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. 8. Department of Population Health Sciences, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. 9. Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, 18509, USA. 10. Cancer Institute, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. 11. Department of Pathology, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. 12. Harvard Medical School, Center for Neuro-Oncology,, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 13. Department of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute/Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, 33176, USA. 15. Division of Neuro-Oncology, The OH State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James and OSU Neurological Institute, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. 16. Department of Neuro-Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Therapeutic intervention at glioblastoma (GBM) progression, as defined by current assessment criteria, is arguably too late as second-line therapies fail to extend survival. Still, most GBM trials target recurrent disease. We propose integration of a novel imaging biomarker to more confidently and promptly define progression and propose a critical timepoint for earlier intervention to extend therapeutic exposure. METHODS: A retrospective review of 609 GBM patients between 2006 and 2019 yielded 135 meeting resection, clinical, and imaging inclusion criteria. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed 2000+ sequential brain MRIs (initial diagnosis to first progression) for development of T2 FLAIR signal intensity (SI) within the resection cavity (RC) compared to the ventricles (V) for quantitative inter-image normalization. PFS and OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by SI. Specificity and sensitivity were determined using a 2 × 2 table and pathology confirmation at progression. Multivariate analysis evaluated SI effect on the hazard rate for death after adjusting for established prognostic covariates. Recursive partitioning determined successive quantifiers and cutoffs associated with outcomes. Neurological deficits correlated with SI. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of patients developed SI on average 3.4 months before RANO-assessed progression with 84% sensitivity. SI-positivity portended neurological decline and significantly poorer outcomes for PFS (median, 10 vs. 15 months) and OS (median, 20 vs. 29 months) compared to SI-negative. RC/V ratio ≥ 4 was the most significant prognostic indicator of death. CONCLUSION: Implications of these data are far-reaching, potentially shifting paradigms for glioma treatment response assessment, altering timepoints for salvage therapeutic intervention, and reshaping glioma clinical trial design.
PURPOSE: Therapeutic intervention at glioblastoma (GBM) progression, as defined by current assessment criteria, is arguably too late as second-line therapies fail to extend survival. Still, most GBM trials target recurrent disease. We propose integration of a novel imaging biomarker to more confidently and promptly define progression and propose a critical timepoint for earlier intervention to extend therapeutic exposure. METHODS: A retrospective review of 609 GBM patients between 2006 and 2019 yielded 135 meeting resection, clinical, and imaging inclusion criteria. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed 2000+ sequential brain MRIs (initial diagnosis to first progression) for development of T2 FLAIR signal intensity (SI) within the resection cavity (RC) compared to the ventricles (V) for quantitative inter-image normalization. PFS and OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by SI. Specificity and sensitivity were determined using a 2 × 2 table and pathology confirmation at progression. Multivariate analysis evaluated SI effect on the hazard rate for death after adjusting for established prognostic covariates. Recursive partitioning determined successive quantifiers and cutoffs associated with outcomes. Neurological deficits correlated with SI. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of patients developed SI on average 3.4 months before RANO-assessed progression with 84% sensitivity. SI-positivity portended neurological decline and significantly poorer outcomes for PFS (median, 10 vs. 15 months) and OS (median, 20 vs. 29 months) compared to SI-negative. RC/V ratio ≥ 4 was the most significant prognostic indicator of death. CONCLUSION: Implications of these data are far-reaching, potentially shifting paradigms for glioma treatment response assessment, altering timepoints for salvage therapeutic intervention, and reshaping glioma clinical trial design.
Entities:
Keywords:
FLAIR signal intensity (SI); Imaging biomarker; Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO); Progressed glioblastoma; Response Assessment in neuro-Oncology (RANO); Signal Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SANO)
Authors: E T Wong; K R Hess; M J Gleason; K A Jaeckle; A P Kyritsis; M D Prados; V A Levin; W K Yung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thierry Gorlia; Roger Stupp; Alba A Brandes; Roy R Rampling; Pierre Fumoleau; Christian Dittrich; Mario M Campone; Chris C Twelves; Eric Raymond; Monika E Hegi; Denis Lacombe; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lakshmi Nayak; Lisa M DeAngelis; Alba A Brandes; David M Peereboom; Evanthia Galanis; Nancy U Lin; Riccardo Soffietti; David R Macdonald; Marc Chamberlain; James Perry; Kurt Jaeckle; Minesh Mehta; Roger Stupp; Alona Muzikansky; Elena Pentsova; Timothy Cloughesy; Fabio M Iwamoto; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen; Martin J van den Bent; David A Reardon Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Mark R Gilbert; Meihua Wang; Kenneth D Aldape; Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Kurt A Jaeckle; Terri S Armstrong; Jeffrey S Wefel; Minhee Won; Deborah T Blumenthal; Anita Mahajan; Christopher J Schultz; Sara Erridge; Brigitta Baumert; Kristen I Hopkins; Tzahala Tzuk-Shina; Paul D Brown; Arnab Chakravarti; Walter J Curran; Minesh P Mehta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Weller; Martin van den Bent; Kirsten Hopkins; Jörg C Tonn; Roger Stupp; Andrea Falini; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan-Moyal; Didier Frappaz; Roger Henriksson; Carmen Balana; Olivier Chinot; Zvi Ram; Guido Reifenberger; Riccardo Soffietti; Wolfgang Wick Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 41.316