4.6 Review

Response assessment in medulloblastoma and leptomeningeal seeding tumors: recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology committee

Journal

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 13-23

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nox087

Keywords

brain; medulloblastoma; RANO; response; tumor

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. Center for Cancer Research
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIABC011447, ZIABC011299] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lack of standard response criteria in clinical trials for medulloblastoma and other seeding tumors complicates assessment of therapeutic efficacy and comparisons across studies. An international working group was established to develop consensus recommendations for response assessment. The aim is that these recommendations be prospectively evaluated in clinical trials, with the goal of achieving more reliable risk stratification and uniformity across clinical trials. Current practices and literature review were performed to identify major confounding issues and justify subsequently developed recommendations; in areas lacking scientific investigations, recommendations were based on experience of committee members and consensus was reached after discussion. Recommendations apply to both adult and pediatric patients with medulloblastoma and other seeding tumors. Response should be assessed using MR imaging (brain and spine), CSF cytology, and neurologic examination. Clinical imaging standards with minimum mandatory sequence acquisition that optimizes detection of leptomeningeal metastases are defined. We recommend central review prior to inclusion in treatment cohorts to ensure appropriate risk stratification and cohort inclusion. Consensus recommendations and response definitions for patients with medulloblastomas and other seeding tumors have been established; as with other Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology recommendations, these need to now be prospectively validated in clinical trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available