4.6 Article

Corticosteroid use endpoints in neuro-oncology: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 7, 页码 897-906

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noy056

关键词

corticosteroids; endpoints; peritumor edema; RANO

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for peritumor edema but are often associated with significant side effects. Therapies that can reduce corticosteroid use would potentially be of significant benefit to patients. However, currently there are no standardized endpoints evaluating corticosteroid use in neuro-oncology clinical trials. Methods. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group has developed consensus recommendations for endpoints evaluating corticosteroid use in clinical trials in both adults and children with brain tumors. Results. Responders are defined as patients with a 50% reduction in total daily corticosteroid dose compared with baseline or reduction of the total daily dose to <= 2 mg of dexamethasone (or equivalent dose of other corticosteroid); baseline dose must be at least 4 mg of dexamethasone daily (or equivalent dose of other corticosteroids) for at least one week. Patients must have stable or improved Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) score or Karnofsky performance status score or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (Lansky score for children age <16 y), and an improved score on a relevant clinical outcome assessment tool. These criteria must be sustained for at least 4 weeks after baseline assessment to be considered a response, and are confirmed 4 weeks after that (ie, 8 wk after baseline assessment) to be considered a sustained response. Conclusions. This RANO proposal for corticosteroid use endpoints in neuro-oncology clinical trials may need to be refined and will require prospective validation in clinical studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据