Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Response Assessment Challenges in Clinical Trials of Gliomas

  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate, reproducible criteria for determining tumor response and progression after therapy are critical for optimal patient care and effective evaluation of novel therapeutic agents. Currently, the most widely used criteria for determining treatment response in gliomas is based on two-dimensional tumor measurements using neuroimaging studies (Macdonald criteria). In recent years, the limitation of these criteria, which only address the contrast-enhancing component of the tumor, have become increasingly apparent. This review discusses challenges that have emerged in assessing response in patients with gliomas and approaches being introduced to address them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Wen PY, Kesari S: Malignant gliomas in adults. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:492–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS): Primary Brain Tumors in the United States, 2000–2004. Available at http://www.cbtrus.org/reports//2007–2008/2007report.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2009.

  3. Wong ET, Hess KR, Gleason MJ, et al.: Outcomes and prognostic factors in recurrent glioma patients enrolled onto phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:2572–2578.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lamborn KR, Yung WK, Chang SM, et al.: Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2008, 10:162–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. •• Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al.: Proposal for an updated response criteria in high-grade gliomas. J Clin Oncol (in press). This article discusses new, updated response criteria for high-grade gliomas from the RANO Working Group.

  6. Therasse P, Arbuck S, Eisenhauer E, et al.: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92:205–216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al.: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009, 45:228–247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Warren KE, Patronas N, Aikin AA, et al.: Comparison of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements of childhood brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001, 93:1401–1405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shah GD, Kesari S, Xu R, et al.: Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2006, 8:38–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, et al.: Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro Oncol 2006, 8:156–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Macdonald D, Cascino T, Schold SJ, Cairncross J: Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990, 8:1277–1280.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. • Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, et al.: Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2008, 5:634–644. This article provides a good review discussion of the limitations of current response criteria.

  13. • Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ: Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008, 29:419–424. This article offers an excellent overview of imaging in brain tumor trials.

  14. •• van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, et al.: End point assessment in gliomas: novel treatments limit usefulness of classical Macdonald’s Criteria. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:2905–2908. This recent article reviews the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Steering Committee on the limitations of the Macdonald criteria.

  15. Henegar MM, Moran CJ, Silbergeld DL: Early postoperative magnetic resonance imaging following nonneoplastic cortical resection. J Neurosurg 1996, 84:174–179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar AJ, Leeds NE, Fuller GN, et al.: Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy- and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology 2000, 217:377–384.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ulmer S, Braga TA, Barker FG 2nd, et al.: Clinical and radiographic features of peritumoral infarction following resection of glioblastoma. Neurology 2006, 67:1668–1670.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Finn MA, Blumenthal DT, Salzman KL, Jensen RL: Transient postictal MRI changes in patients with brain tumors may mimic disease progression. Surg Neurol 2007, 67:246–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cairncross JG, Macdonald DR, Pexman JH, Ives FJ: Steroid-induced CT changes in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. Neurology 1988, 38:724–726.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Watling CJ, Lee DH, Macdonald DR, Cairncross JG: Corticosteroid-induced magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1994, 12:1886–1889.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cairncross JG, Pexman JH, Rathbone MP, DelMaestro RF: Postoperative contrast enhancement in patients with brain tumor. Ann Neurol 1985, 17:570–572.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sato N, Bronen RA, Sze G, et al.: Postoperative changes in the brain: MR imaging findings in patients without neoplasms. Radiology 1997, 204:839–846.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cairncross JG, Pexman JH, Rathbone MP: Post-surgical contrast enhancement mimicking residual brain tumour. Can J Neurol Sci 1985, 12:75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith JS, Cha S, Mayo MC, et al.: Serial diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cases of glioma: distinguishing tumor recurrence from postresection injury. J Neurosurg 2005, 103:428–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Matheus MG, Castillo M, Ewend M, et al.: CT and MR imaging after placement of the GliaSite radiation therapy system to treat brain tumor: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004, 25:1211–1217.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Parney IF, Kunwar S, McDermott M, et al.: Neuroradiographic changes following convection-enhanced delivery of the recombinant cytotoxin interleukin 13-PE38QQR for recurrent malignant glioma. J Neurosurg 2005, 102:267–275.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Floeth FW, Aulich A, Langen KJ, et al.: MR imaging and single-photon emission CT findings after gene therapy for human glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001, 22:1517–1527.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ross DA, Sandler HM, Balter JM, et al.: Imaging changes after stereotactic radiosurgery of primary and secondary malignant brain tumors. J Neurooncol 2002, 56:175–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kunwar S, Prados MD, Chang SM, et al.: Direct intracerebral delivery of cintredekin besudotox (IL13-PE38QQR) in recurrent malignant glioma: a report by the Cintredekin Besudotox Intraparenchymal Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:837–844.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vogelbaum MA, Sampson JH, Kunwar S, et al.: Convection-enhanced delivery of cintredekin besudotox (interleukin-13-pe38qqr) followed by radiation therapy with and without temozolomide in newly diagnosed malignant gliomas: phase 1 study of final safety results. Neurosurgery 2008 Sep 15 (Epub ahead of print).

  31. Young GS: Advanced MRI of adult brain tumors. Neurol Clin 2007, 25:947–973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen W: Clinical applications of PET in brain tumors. J Nucl Med 2007, 48:1468–1481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Soares DP, Law M: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brain: review of metabolites and clinical applications. Clin Radiol 2009, 64:12–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sibtain NA, Howe FA, Saunders DE: The clinical value of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in adult brain tumours. Clin Radiol 2007, 62:109–119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, et al.: Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:987–996.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. • Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, et al.: Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008, 9:453–461. This article offers a good review of pseudoprogression.

  37. Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Spagnolli F, et al.: Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: pitfalls in neurooncology. Neuro Oncol 2008, 10:361–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. • Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, et al.: MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:2192–2197. This important study suggests that MGMT methylation status may correlate with pseudoprogression.

  39. Brandsma D, van den Bent MJ: Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas. Curr Opin Neurol 2009 Sep 16 (Epub ahead of print).

  40. Taal W, Brandsma D, de Bruin HG, et al.: Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer 2008, 113:405–410.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Chalmers L, et al.: Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2007, 82:81–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gerstner ER, McNamara MB, Norden AD, et al.: Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neurooncol 2009, 94:97–101. This study suggests that pseudoprogression also occurs following radiotherapy alone.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. de Wit MC, de Bruin HG, Eijkenboom W, et al.: Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology 2004, 63:535–537.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Matsusue E, Fink JR, Rockhill JK, et al.: Distinction between glioma progression and post-radiation change by combined physiologic MR imaging. Neuroradiology 2009 Oct 16 (Epub ahead of print).

  45. Hu LS, Baxter LC, Smith KA, et al.: Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009, 30:552–558.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, et al.: Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009, 253:486–496. This interesting study suggests that perfusion imaging may be useful in differentiating radiation necrosis from recurrent tumor.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chang SM, Clarke J, Wen P: Novel imaging response assessment for drug therapies in recurrent malignant glioma. In ASCO Educational Book 2009. Edited by Govindan R. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2009:107–111.

  48. Cross NE, Glantz MJ: Neurologic complication of radiation therapy. Neurologic Clinics 2003, 21:249–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ruben JD, Dally M, Bailey M, et al.: Cerebral radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 65:499–508.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Shrieve DC, Alexander ER, Wen PY, et al.: Comparison of stereotactic radiosurgery and brachytherapy in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Neurosurgery 1995, 36:275–282.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ricci PE, Karis JP, Heiserman JE, et al.: Differentiating recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis: time for re-evaluation of positron emission tomography? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998, 19:407–413.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Spence AM, Muzi M, Mankoff DA, et al.: 18F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter. J Nucl Med 2004, 45:1653–1659.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Terakawa Y, Tsuyuguchi N, Iwai Y, et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 2008, 49:694–699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rachinger W, Goetz C, Popperl G, et al.: Positron emission tomography with O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of recurrent gliomas. Neurosurgery 2005, 57; discussion505–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Rock JP, Scarpace L, Hearshen D, et al.: Associations among magnetic resonance spectroscopy, apparent diffusion coefficients, and image-guided histopathology with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery 2004, 54; discussion 1117–1119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Batchelor T, Sorensen A, di Tomaso E, et al.: AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell 2007, 11:83–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE 2nd, et al.: Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:4722–4729.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kreisl TN, Kim L, Moore K, et al.: Phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab plus irinotecan at tumor progression in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:740–745.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, et al.: Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:4733–4740.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Prados M, Cloughesy T, Samant M, et al.: Evaluation of objective response as a predictor of survival in bevacizumab-treated patients with glioblastoma at first or second relapse in the BRAIN Study. Neuro Oncol (in press).

  61. Norden AD, Drappatz J, Muzikansky A, et al.: An exploratory survival analysis of anti-angiogenic therapy for recurrent malignant glioma. J Neurooncol 2009, 92:149–155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. • Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K, et al.: Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology 2008, 70:779–787. This article discusses the first study to draw attention to the patients treated with bevacizumab who subsequently develop invasive nonenhancing tumor.

  63. Narayana A, Raza S, Golfinos JG, et al.: Bevacizumab therapy in recurrent high grade glioma: impact on local control and survival [abstract 13000]. Presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Chicago, IL; May 30–June 3, 2008.

  64. Norden AD, Drappatz J, Wen PY: Antiangiogenic therapies for high-grade glioma. Nat Rev Neurol 2009, 5:610–620.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Zuniga RM, Torcuator R, Jain R, et al.: Efficacy, safety and patterns of response and recurrence in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab plus irinotecan. J Neurooncol 2009, 91:329–336.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rubenstein J, Kim J, Ozawa T, et al.: Anti-VEGF antibody treatment of glioblastoma prolongs survival but results in increased vascular cooption. Neoplasia 2000, 2:306–314.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. • Paez-Ribes M, Allen E, Hudock J, et al.: Antiangiogenic therapy elicits malignant progression of tumors to increased local invasion and distant metastasis. Cancer Cell 2009, 15:220–231. This interesting preclinical study suggests that inhibition of VEGF results in a noninvasive phenotype.

  68. • Bergers G, Hanahan D: Modes of resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2008, 8:592–603. This article provides an excellent review of the mechanisms of resistance to antiangiogenic therapies.

  69. Lucio-Eterovic AK, Piao Y, de Groot JF: Mediators of glioblastoma resistance and invasion during antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15:4589–4599.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Gerstner E, Chen P-J, Wen P, et al.: Infiltrative patterns of glioblastoma spread detected via diffusion MRI after treatment with cediranib. Neuro Oncol (in press).

  71. Chawla S, Poptani H, Melhem ER: Anatomic, physiologic and metabolic imaging in neuro-oncology. Cancer Treat Res 2008, 143:3–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ullrich RT, Kracht LW, Jacobs AH: Neuroimaging in patients with gliomas. Semin Neurol 2008, 28:484–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. van den Bent MJ, Afra D, de Witte O, et al.: Long-term efficacy of early versus delayed radiotherapy for low-grade astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma in adults: the EORTC 22845 randomised trial. Lancet 2005, 366:985–990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Karim AB, Maat B, Hatlevoll R, et al.: A randomized trial on dose-response in radiation therapy of low-grade cerebral glioma: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Study 22844. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 36:549–556.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center and Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, SW430D, 44 Binney Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Patrick Y. Wen, Andrew D. Norden, Jan Drappatz & Eudocia Quant

Authors
  1. Patrick Y. Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew D. Norden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Drappatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eudocia Quant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Y. Wen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wen, P.Y., Norden, A.D., Drappatz, J. et al. Response Assessment Challenges in Clinical Trials of Gliomas. Curr Oncol Rep 12, 68–75 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-009-0078-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-009-0078-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation