Search

Background: Histone mutant gliomas (HMG) with histone H3 K27 and G34 mutations are recognized as biologically discrete entities with distinct anatomical locations, younger age at presentation (in comparison to the most common high-grade gliomas, IDH wildtype glioblastoma), and poor prognosis. There is a paucity of data regarding the management of adult HMG patients and no consensus on management. This study aims to identify current patterns of Australian and US neuro-oncology clinical practice for this entity., Methods: Following institutional approvals, patterns of care questionnaire designed to capture relevant clinical variables was circulated through the Cooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology (COGNO) in Australia and the Caris Precision Oncology Alliance in the United States (US)., Results: Between 4/2021 and 10/2021, 43 responses were collected. 33% ( n = 14) of responders tested all patients for HMGs routinely; 40.92% ( n = 18) tested in select patients 26% ( n = 11) did not test for HMGs. The common indications for testing selected patients were midline anatomic location ( n = 18) and age ( n = 11) (<50 years). 23 used molecular sequencing, 22 used IHC at their centers. Nine participants stated knowledge of histone H3 mutations did not affect their management of these gliomas, 11 said it affected their management at the time of recurrence, 23 stated it affected the management of midline K27M patients, 11 participants stated it affected the management of K27M mutant gliomas in other locations, and 3 felt it affected the management of G34R/V mutant gliomas., Conclusion: Here we present a description of how the discovery of a new molecular subtype of primary glial tumors, histone mutated gliomas in adults, is being introduced into clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: There is minimal evidence to support decision making for symptomatic steroid-refractory pseudoprogression or true progression occurring after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for glioblastoma (GBM). This study audited the survival outcome of patients managed with redo craniotomy (RedoSx) or bevacizumab (BEV) for steroid-refractory mass effect after IMRT for GBM., Methods: Patients with GBM managed between 2008 and 2019 with the EORTC-NCIC Protocol were entered into a prospective database. Patients with symptomatic steroid-refractory mass effect within 6 months of IMRT managed with either RedoSx or BEV were identified for analysis. For the primary endpoint of median overall survival (OS) postintervention, outcome was analyzed in regards to potential prognostic factors, and differences between groups were assessed by log-rank analyses., Results: Of the 399 patients managed with the EORTC-NCIC Protocol, 78 required an intervention within 6 months of IMRT completion for either true or pseudoprogression (49 with RedoSx and 29 with BEV). Subsequently, 20 of the 43 patients managed with RedoSx when BEV was clinically available, required salvage with BEV within 6 months after RedoSx. Median OS postintervention was 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.84-11.61) for the total group; and 8.7 months (95% CI: 6.8-13.1) for RedoSx and 9.4 months (95% CI: 7.8-13.6) for BEV ( P = .38). Subsequent use of BEV in RedoSx patients was not associated with improved survival compared with RedoSx alone ( P = .10). Age, time from IMRT, and ECOG performance status were not associated with OS. In the RedoSx patients, immunohistochemical features such as Ki-67% reduction correlated with survival. The presence of pure necrosis and residual tumor cells only had improved survival compared with the presence of gross tumor ( P < .001)., Conclusions: At time of symptomatic steroid-refractory true or pseudoprogression following IMRT for GBM, BEV was equivalent to RedoSx in terms of OS. Pseudoprogression with residual cells at RedoSx was not associated with worse outcome compared to pure necrosis., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)