David R. Macdonald

Currently, the most widely used criteria for assessing response to therapy in high-grade gliomas are based on two-dimensional tumor measurements on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in conjunction with clinical assessment and corticosteroid dose (the Macdonald Criteria). It is increasingly apparent that there are significant limitations to these criteria, which only address the contrast-enhancing component of the tumor. For example, chemoradiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastomas results in transient increase in tumor enhancement (pseudoprogression) in 20% to 30% of patients, which is difficult to differentiate from true tumor progression. Antiangiogenic agents produce high radiographic response rates, as defined by a rapid decrease in contrast enhancement on CT/MRI that occurs within days of initiation of treatment and that is partly a result of reduced vascular permeability to contrast agents rather than a true antitumor effect. In addition, a subset of patients treated with antiangiogenic agents develop tumor recurrence characterized by an increase in the nonenhancing component depicted on T2-weighted/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences. The recognition that contrast enhancement is nonspecific and may not always be a true surrogate of tumor response and the need to account for the nonenhancing component of the tumor mandate that new criteria be developed and validated to permit accurate assessment of the efficacy of novel therapies. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group is an international effort to develop new standardized response criteria for clinical trials in brain tumors. In this proposal, we present the recommendations for updated response criteria for high-grade gliomas.

We suggest "new" response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma and favor rigorous criteria similar to those in medical oncology, with important modifications. Four response categories are proposed: complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Response in this scheme is based on major changes in tumor size on the enhanced computed tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Scan changes are interpreted in light of steroid use and neurologic findings. We advocate careful patient selection, emphasize pitfalls in the assessment of response, and suggest guidelines to minimize misinterpretations of response.

Background/Methods: Gliomas are common malignant neoplasms of the central nervous system. Among the major subtypes of gliomas, oligodendrogliomas are distinguished by their remarkable sensitivity to chemotherapy, with approximately two thirds of anaplastic (malignant) oligodendrogliomas responding dramatically to combination treatment with procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (termed PCV). Unfortunately, no clinical or pathologic feature of these tumors allows accurate prediction of their response to chemotherapy. Anaplastic oligodendrogliomas also are distinguished by a unique constellation of molecular genetic alterations, including coincident loss of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in 50%-70% of tumors. We have hypothesized that these or other specific genetic changes might predict the response to chemotherapy and prognosis in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. Therefore, we have analyzed molecular genetic alterations involving chromosomes 1p, 10q, and 19q and the TP53 (on chromosome 17p) and CDKN2A (on chromosome 9p) genes, in addition to clinicopathologic features in 39 patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas for whom chemotherapeutic response and survival could be assessed. Results/Conclusions: Allelic loss (or loss of heterozygosity) of chromosome 1p is a statistically significant predictor of chemosensitivity, and combined loss involving chromosomes 1p and 19q is statistically significantly associated with both chemosensitivity and longer recurrence-free survival after chemotherapy. Moreover, in both univariate and multivariate analyses, losses involving both chromosomes 1p and 19q were strongly associated with longer overall survival, whereas CDKN2A gene deletions and ring enhancement (i.e., contrast enhancement forming a rim around the tumor) on neuroimaging were associated with a significantly worse prognosis. The inverse relationship between CDKN2A gene deletions and losses of chromosomes 1p and 19q further implies that these differential clinical behaviors reflect two independent genetic subtypes of anaplastic oligodendroglioma. These results suggest that molecular genetic analysis may aid therapeutic decisions and predict outcome in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas.

Development of novel therapies for CNS tumors requires reliable assessment of response and progression. This requirement has been particularly challenging in neuro-oncology for which contrast enhancement serves as an imperfect surrogate for tumor volume and is influenced by agents that affect vascular permeability, such as antiangiogenic therapies. In addition, most tumors have a nonenhancing component that can be difficult to accurately quantify. To improve the response assessment in neuro-oncology and to standardize the criteria that are used for different CNS tumors, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group was established. This multidisciplinary international working group consists of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, neuropsychologists, and experts in clinical outcomes assessments, working in collaboration with government and industry to enhance the interpretation of clinical trials. The RANO working group was originally created to update response criteria for high- and low-grade gliomas and to address such issues as pseudoresponse and nonenhancing tumor progression from antiangiogenic therapies, and pseudoprogression from radiochemotherapy. RANO has expanded to include working groups that are focused on other tumors, including brain metastases, leptomeningeal metastases, spine tumors, pediatric brain tumors, and meningiomas, as well as other clinical trial end points, such as clinical outcomes assessments, seizures, corticosteroid use, and positron emission tomography imaging. In an effort to standardize the measurement of neurologic function for clinical assessment, the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology scale was drafted. Born out of a workshop conducted by the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition and the US Food and Drug Administration, a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol now exists to reduce variability and improve reliability. Efforts by RANO have been widely accepted and are increasingly being used in neuro-oncology trials, although additional refinements will be needed.

PURPOSE: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time, some limitations of these criteria were identified, and challenges emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. METHODS: Informed by data from studies evaluating the different criteria, updates to the RANO criteria are proposed (RANO 2.0). RESULTS: We recommend a standard set of criteria for both high- and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the postradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than the postsurgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for comparison with subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks after radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, are required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for the evaluation of treatment for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (two-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type glioblastoma, the nonenhancing disease will no longer be evaluated except when assessing response to antiangiogenic agents. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant nonenhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and nonenhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION: The revised RANO 2.0 criteria refine response assessment in gliomas.