Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Treatment Options in Oncology
Published in: Current Treatment Options in Oncology 7/2016

01-07-2016 | Neuro-oncology (GJ Lesser, Section Editor)

Assessment of Brain Tumor Response: RANO and Its Offspring

Authors: Sylvia C. Eisele, M.D., Patrick Y. Wen, M.D., Eudocia Q. Lee, M.D., M.P.H.

Published in: Current Treatment Options in Oncology | Issue 7/2016

Login to get access

Opinion Statement

Treatment options for most nervous system tumors remain limited and patients are often confronted with significant morbidity and reduced life expectancy. However, significant efforts are underway to find more effective therapies for patients with primary and secondary brain tumors. As more and more clinical trials for nervous system tumors are being conducted, it is increasingly important to optimize the conduct of clinical trials in neuro-oncology. One of the key aspects in this regard is the development of objective and standardized criteria that allow for accurate response assessment in clinical trials and prevent the misclassification of responders and non-responders. Such misclassification may lead to premature discontinuation of an actually effective agent, thereby withholding a potentially active treatment from the patient. Conversely, patients may be inappropriately continued on an inactive treatment. Moreover, such misclassification may confound the data obtained in such studies and may lead to false conclusions with regards to the efficacy of the investigated drug. Therefore, reliable response assessment criteria are necessary that not only accurately capture radiographic changes but also account for treatment-related changes and incorporate the assessment of clinical status and quality of life (QoL). The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group is an international collaboration of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, neuroradiologists, and regulatory groups (among others) commissioned to develop objective and tumor-specific response criteria for various tumor subtypes. This article reviews the currently available response criteria for high-grade glioma, low-grade glioma, and brain metastases and discusses some of the barriers to accurate assessment of treatment response in neuro-oncology.
Literature
1.
Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Fulop J, Liu M, Blanda R, Kromer C, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008–2012. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17 Suppl 4:iv1–62.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Gaspar LE, Chansky K, Albain KS, Vallieres E, Rusch V, Crowley JJ, et al. Time from treatment to subsequent diagnosis of brain metastases in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective review by the Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2955–61.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Brufsky AM, Mayer M, Rugo HS, Kaufman PA, Tan-Chiu E, Tripathy D, et al. Central nervous system metastases in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: incidence, treatment, and survival in patients from registHER. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:4834–43.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lin NU, Claus E, Sohl J, Razzak AR, Arnaout A, Winer EP. Sites of distant recurrence and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: high incidence of central nervous system metastases. Cancer. 2008;113:2638–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Chiarion-Sileni V, Guida M, Ridolfi L, Romanini A, Del Bianco P, Pigozzo J, et al. Central nervous system failure in melanoma patients: results of a randomised, multicentre phase 3 study of temozolomide- and dacarbazine-based regimens. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:1816–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
van den Bent MJ, Brandes AA, Rampling R, Kouwenhoven MC, Kros JM, Carpentier AF, et al. Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib versus temozolomide or carmustine in recurrent glioblastoma: EORTC brain tumor group study 26034. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1268–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Ballman KV, Buckner JC, Brown PD, Giannini C, Flynn PJ, LaPlant BR, et al. The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol. 2007;9:29–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Lamborn KR, Yung WK, Chang SM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF, DeAngelis LM, et al. Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2008;10:162–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold Jr SC, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1277–80.PubMed
10.
van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Chang SM. End point assessment in gliomas: novel treatments limit usefulness of classical Macdonald’s Criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2905–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ. Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:419–24.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Wen PY, Norden AD, Drappatz J, Quant E. Response assessment challenges in clinical trials of gliomas. Curr Oncol Rep. 2010;12:68–75.CrossRefPubMed
14.••
Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72. This article provides recommendations for the response assessment in high-grade gliomas and is the first report published by the RANO working groupCrossRefPubMed
15.
Cairncross JG, Pexman JH, Rathbone MP, DelMaestro RF. Postoperative contrast enhancement in patients with brain tumor. Ann Neurol. 1985;17:570–2.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sheline GE, Wara WM, Smith V. Therapeutic irradiation and brain injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1980;6:1215–28.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Watling CJ, Lee DH, Macdonald DR, Cairncross JG. Corticosteroid-induced magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:1886–9.PubMed
18.
Henegar MM, Moran CJ, Silbergeld DL. Early postoperative magnetic resonance imaging following nonneoplastic cortical resection. J Neurosurg. 1996;84:174–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Ulmer S, Braga TA, Barker 2nd FG, Lev MH, Gonzalez RG, Henson JW. Clinical and radiographic features of peritumoral infarction following resection of glioblastoma. Neurology. 2006;67:1668–70.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Finn MA, Blumenthal DT, Salzman KL, Jensen RL. Transient postictal MRI changes in patients with brain tumors may mimic disease progression. Surg Neurol. 2007;67:246–50. discussion 50.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, Sminia P, van den Bent MJ. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:453–61.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Gerstner ER, McNamara MB, Norden AD, Lafrankie D, Wen PY. Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neurooncol. 2009;94:97–101.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Taal W, Brandsma D, de Bruin HG, Bromberg JE, Swaak-Kragten AT, Smitt PA, et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer. 2008;113:405–10.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, Blatt V, Pession A, Tallini G, 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;26:2192–7.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Gilbert MR, Sulman EP, Mehta MP. Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2048–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W, Henriksson R, Saran F, Nishikawa R, et al. Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:709–22.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, Mikkelsen T, Schiff D, Abrey LE, et al. Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4733–40.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Rubenstein JL, Kim J, Ozawa T, Zhang M, Westphal M, Deen DF, et al. Anti-VEGF antibody treatment of glioblastoma prolongs survival but results in increased vascular cooption. Neoplasia. 2000;2:306–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K, Muzikansky A, Klufas R, Ross GL, et al. Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology. 2008;70:779–87.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Paez-Ribes M, Allen E, Hudock J, Takeda T, Okuyama H, Vinals F, et al. Antiangiogenic therapy elicits malignant progression of tumors to increased local invasion and distant metastasis. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:220–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.••
van den Bent MJ, Wefel JS, Schiff D, Taphoorn MJ, Jaeckle K, Junck L, et al. Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:583–93. This article gives recommendations for the response assessment in low-grade gliomas.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, 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;92:205–16.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–14.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, Barani IJ, Baumert BG, Brown PD, et al. Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 1: patient population, response, and progression. A report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e396–406.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Lin NU, Wefel JS, Lee EQ, Schiff D, van den Bent MJ, Soffietti R, et al. Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 2: neurocognitive, neurological, and quality-of-life outcomes. A report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e407–16.CrossRefPubMed
37.••
Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, Barani IJ, Barboriak DP, Baumert BG, et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e270–8. This article provides an overview over the response criteria developed for brain metastases.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Jaeckle KA. Neoplastic meningitis from systemic malignancies: diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Semin Oncol. 2006;33:312–23.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Hitchins RN, Bell DR, Woods RL, Levi JA. A prospective randomized trial of single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in meningeal carcinomatosis. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5:1655–62.PubMed
41.
Glantz MJ, Van Horn A, Fisher R, Chamberlain MC. Route of intracerebrospinal fluid chemotherapy administration and efficacy of therapy in neoplastic meningitis. Cancer. 2010;116:1947–52.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Grossman SA, Finkelstein DM, Ruckdeschel JC, Trump DL, Moynihan T, Ettinger DS. Randomized prospective comparison of intraventricular methotrexate and thiotepa in patients with previously untreated neoplastic meningitis. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:561–9.PubMed
43.
Glantz MJ, LaFollette S, Jaeckle KA, Shapiro W, Swinnen L, Rozental JR, et al. Randomized trial of a slow-release versus a standard formulation of cytarabine for the intrathecal treatment of lymphomatous meningitis. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3110–6.PubMed
44.•
Chamberlain M, Soffietti R, Raizer J, Ruda R, Brandsma D, Boogerd W, et al. Leptomeningeal metastasis: a response assessment in neuro-oncology critical review of endpoints and response criteria of published randomized clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:1176–85. This article gives an excellent overview of the pathology, clinical presentation of leptomeningeal metastases and points out the strength and weaknesses of the clinical trials performed to date.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Thibault I, Chang EL, Sheehan J, Ahluwalia MS, Guckenberger M, Sohn MJ, et al. Response assessment after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: a report from the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e595–603.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, Berger ER, Small EJ, Penson DF, et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:411–22.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521–32.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, Rutkowski P, Mackiewicz A, Stroiakovski D, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:30–9.CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbe C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7412–20.CrossRefPubMed
52.••
Okada H, Weller M, Huang R, Finocchiaro G, Gilbert MR, Wick W, et al. Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e534–42. This article gives recommendations for the response assessment in immunotherapy trials.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Piemonti L, Monti P, Allavena P, Sironi M, Soldini L, Leone BE, et al. Glucocorticoids affect human dendritic cell differentiation and maturation. J Immunol. 1999;162:6473–81.PubMed
54.
Hsu AK, Quach H, Tai T, Prince HM, Harrison SJ, Trapani JA, et al. The immunostimulatory effect of lenalidomide on NK-cell function is profoundly inhibited by concurrent dexamethasone therapy. Blood. 2011;117:1605–13.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Gustafson MP, Lin Y, New KC, Bulur PA, O’Neill BP, Gastineau DA, et al. Systemic immune suppression in glioblastoma: the interplay between CD14 + HLA-DRlo/neg monocytes, tumor factors, and dexamethasone. Neuro Oncol. 2010;12:631–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Norden AD, Ligon KL, Hammond SN, Muzikansky A, Reardon DA, Kaley TJ, et al. Phase II study of monthly pasireotide LAR (SOM230C) for recurrent or progressive meningioma. Neurology. 2015;84:280–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Norden AD, Raizer JJ, Abrey LE, Lamborn KR, Lassman AB, Chang SM, et al. Phase II trials of erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with recurrent meningioma. J Neurooncol. 2010;96:211–7.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Kaley TJ, Wen P, Schiff D, Ligon K, Haidar S, Karimi S, et al. Phase II trial of sunitinib for recurrent and progressive atypical and anaplastic meningioma. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17:116–21.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Nayak L, Iwamoto FM, Rudnick JD, Norden AD, Lee EQ, Drappatz J, et al. Atypical and anaplastic meningiomas treated with bevacizumab. J Neurooncol. 2012;109:187–93.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Rogers L, Barani I, Chamberlain M, Kaley TJ, McDermott M, Raizer J, et al. Meningiomas: knowledge base, treatment outcomes, and uncertainties. A RANO review. J Neurosurg. 2015;122:4–23.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Kaley T, Barani I, Chamberlain M, McDermott M, Panageas K, Raizer J, et al. Historical benchmarks for medical therapy trials in surgery- and radiation-refractory meningioma: a RANO review. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:829–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Nayak L, DeAngelis L, Wen P, Brandes A, Soffietti R, Lin N, et al. The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) Scale: a tool to assess neurologic function for integration in the Radiologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Neurology. 2014;82(10 Supplement Abstr):S22.005.
63.
Warren KE, Poussaint TY, Vezina G, Hargrave D, Packer RJ, Goldman S, et al. Challenges with defining response to antitumor agents in pediatric neuro-oncology: a report from the response assessment in pediatric neuro-oncology (RAPNO) working group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:1397–401.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Wen PY, Cloughesy TF, Ellingson BM, Reardon DA, Fine HA, Abrey L, et al. Report of the jumpstarting brain tumor drug development coalition and FDA clinical trials neuroimaging endpoint workshop (January 30, 2014, Bethesda MD). Neuro Oncol. 2014;16 Suppl 7:vii36–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.••
Ellingson BM, Bendszus M, Boxerman J, Barboriak D, Erickson BJ, Smits M, et al. Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17:1188–98. This article makes recommendations for a standardized yet widely applicable imaging protocol for the radiographic surveillance of patients with brain tumors.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Shah GD, Kesari S, Xu R, Batchelor TT, O’Neill AM, Hochberg FH, et al. Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8:38–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
67.
Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, Sykora R, Castillo R, Ballman KV, 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;8:156–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
68.
Bauknecht HC, Romano VC, Rogalla P, Klingebiel R, Wolf C, Bornemann L, et al. Intra- and interobserver variability of linear and volumetric measurements of brain metastases using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:49–56.CrossRefPubMed
69.•
Huang RY, Neagu MR, Reardon DA, Wen PY. Pitfalls in the neuroimaging of glioblastoma in the era of antiangiogenic and immuno/targeted therapy—detecting illusive disease, defining response. Front Neurol. 2015;6:33. This article provides an excellent overview of the current advances in imaging technology for brain tumors.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Eisele SC, Dietrich J. Cerebral radiation necrosis: diagnostic challenge and clinical management. Rev Neurol. 2015;61:225–32.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Assessment of Brain Tumor Response: RANO and Its Offspring
Authors
Sylvia C. Eisele, M.D.
Patrick Y. Wen, M.D.
Eudocia Q. Lee, M.D., M.P.H.
Publication date
01-07-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Oncology / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 1527-2729
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6277
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-016-0413-5

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

Current Treatment Options in Oncology 7/2016 Go to the issue

Leukemia (JP Dutcher, Section Editor)

Chemotherapy Options for Poor Responders to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Orbital Granulocytic Sarcoma

Head and Neck Cancer (J-P Machiels, Section Editor)

Targeting the Tumor Environment in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Skin Cancer (BY Kwong, Section Editor)

Genetics of Cutaneous T Cell Lymphoma: From Bench to Bedside

Skin Cancer (BY Kwong, Section Editor)

Merkel Cell Carcinoma Therapeutic Update

Skin Cancer (BY Kwong, Section Editor)

Management of High-Risk Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Skin
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits