Clinical outcome of biomarker-guided therapies in adult patients with tumors of the nervous system

[Personalized medicine in oncology]

Due to the considerable technological progress in molecular and genetic diagnostics as well as increasing insights into the molecular pathogenesis of diseases, there has been a fundamental paradigm shift in the past two decades from a "one-size-fits-all approach" to personalized, molecularly informed treatment strategies. Personalized medicine or precision medicine focuses on the genetic, physiological, molecular, and biochemical differences between individuals and considers their effects on the development, prevention, and treatment of diseases. As a pioneer of personalized medicine, the field of oncology is particularly noteworthy, where personalized diagnostics and treatment have led to lasting change in the treatment of cancer patients in recent years. In this article, the significant change towards personalized treatment concepts, especially in the field of personalized oncology, will be discussed and examined in more detail.

High costs, low quality of life, reduced survival, and room for improving treatment: an analysis of burden and unmet needs in glioma

Gliomas are a group of heterogeneous tumors that account for substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs to patients and healthcare systems globally. Survival varies considerably by grade, histology, biomarkers, and genetic alterations such as IDH mutations and MGMT promoter methylation, and treatment, but is poor for some grades and histologies, with many patients with glioblastoma surviving less than a year from diagnosis. The present review provides an introduction to glioma, including its classification, epidemiology, economic and humanistic burden, as well as treatment options. Another focus is on treatment recommendations for IDH-mutant astrocytoma, IDH-mutant oligodendroglioma, and glioblastoma, which were synthesized from recent guidelines. While recommendations are nuanced and reflect the complexity of the disease, maximum safe resection is typically the first step in treatment, followed by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy using temozolomide or procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine. Immunotherapies and targeted therapies currently have only a limited role due to disappointing clinical trial results, including in recurrent glioblastoma, for which the nitrosourea lomustine remains the de facto standard of care. The lack of treatment options is compounded by frequently suboptimal clinical practice, in which patients do not receive adequate therapy after resection, including delayed, shortened, or discontinued radiotherapy and chemotherapy courses due to treatment side effects. These unmet needs will require significant efforts to address, including a continued search for novel treatment options, increased awareness of clinical guidelines, improved toxicity management for chemotherapy, and the generation of additional and more robust clinical and health economic evidence.

The role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

In neuro-oncology, the inclusion of tumor patients in the molecular tumor board has only become increasingly widespread in recent years, but so far there are no standards for indication, procedure, evaluation, therapy recommendations and therapy implementation of neuro-oncological patients. The present work examines the current handling of neuro-oncological patients included in molecular tumor boards in Germany.

METHODS

We created an online based survey with questions covering the handling of neuro-oncologic patient inclusion, annotation of genetic analyses, management of target therapies and the general role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology in Germany. We contacted all members of the Neuro-Oncology working group (NOA) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) by e-mail.

RESULTS

38 responses were collected. The majority of those who responded were specialists in neurosurgery or neurology with more than 10 years of professional experience working at a university hospital. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) regularly take place once a week and all treatment disciplines of neuro-oncology patients take part. The inclusions to the MTB are according to distinct tumors and predominantly in case of tumor recurrence. An independently MTB member mostly create the recommendations, which are regularly implemented in the tumor treatment. Recommendations are given for alteration classes 4 and 5. Problems exist mostly within the cost takeover of experimental therapies. The experimental therapies are mostly given in the department of medical oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular tumor boards for neuro-oncological patients, by now, are not standardized in Germany. Similarities exists for patient inclusion and interpretation of molecular alterations; the time point of inclusion and implementation during the patient treatment differ between the various hospitals. Further studies for standardization and harmonisation are needed. In summary, most of the interviewees envision great opportunities and possibilities for molecular-based neuro-oncological therapy in the future.