IMG-04. RESPONSE ASSESSMENT IN PEDIATRIC HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RESPONSE ASSESSMENT IN PEDIATRIC NEURO-ONCOLOGY WORKING GROUP. (4th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Erker, Craig; Tamrazi, Benita; Poussaint, Tina Y; Mueller, Sabine; Mata-Mbemba, Daddy; Franceschi, Enrico; Brandes, Alba A; Rao, Arvind; Haworth, Kellie B; Wen, Patrick Y; Goldman, Stewart; Vezina, Gilbert; Macdonald, Tobey J; Dunkel, Ira J; Morgan, Paul S; Jaspan, Tim; Prados, Michael D; Warren, Katherine E
• Is Part Of: Neuro-oncology. Volume 22(2020)Supplement 3
• Page Start: iii355
• Page End: iii355
• Publication Date: 2020-12-04
• Subjects: Brain Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Brain -- Tumors -- Periodicals; Brain -- Cancer -- Periodicals; Nervous system -- Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.99481
• DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa222.340
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-8517

Abstract

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Response criteria for pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGG) have varied historically and across clinical trials. Compared to adult HGG, pHGG response assessment has unique challenges. An international Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group was established to develop pHGG response assessment criteria. METHODS: Pediatric and adult neuro-oncologists, neuro-radiologists and experts in imaging informatics developed a consensus statement and established a unified response assessment for biopsy-proven pHGG, excluding DIPG. This was achieved by identifying major challenges, reviewing existing literature and current practices, and finally developing recommendations through an iterative process. RESULTS: Categories for response assessment include complete response, partial response, minor response, stable disease and progressive disease. Refractory disease is excluded. Criteria used to determine response assessment include quantitative evaluation of measurable disease, qualitative assessment of diffusion imaging, presence or absence of new lesions, clinical status using performance score, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor and/or corticosteroid use. Response is determined over 2-time points ≥ 8 weeks apart, and when progressive disease is unclear, guidance for repeat MRI imaging and/or utility of repeat biopsy is described. A number of recommendations are also given to standardize response assessment across clinical trials including MRI protocol sequence recommendations for brain and spine, definitions for measurable and non-measurable disease, and imaging time points with post-operative considerations. In addition, guidance is given for differentiating vasogenic edema versus tumor invasion in non-enhancing disease. CONCLUSION: Consensus recommendations and response definitions have been established and, similar to other RAPNO recommendations, prospective validation in clinical trials is warranted.