Development of 'Core Outcome Sets' for Meningioma in Clinical Studies (The COSMIC Project): protocol for two systematic literature reviews, eDelphi surveys and online consensus meetings

Meningioma: International Consortium on Meningiomas consensus review on scientific advances and treatment paradigms for clinicians, researchers, and patients

Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumors in adults and are increasing in incidence due to the aging population and increased access to neuroimaging. While most exhibit nonmalignant behavior, a subset of meningiomas are biologically aggressive and are associated with treatment resistance, resulting in significant neurologic morbidity and even mortality. In recent years, meaningful advances in our understanding of the biology of these tumors have led to the incorporation of molecular biomarkers into their grading and prognostication. However, unlike other central nervous system (CNS) tumors, a unified molecular taxonomy for meningiomas has not yet been established and remains an overarching goal of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy-Not Official World Health Organization (cIMPACT-NOW) working group. Additionally, clinical equipoise still remains on how specific meningioma cases and patient populations should be optimally managed. To address these existing gaps, members of the International Consortium on Meningiomas including field-leading experts, have prepared this comprehensive consensus narrative review directed toward clinicians, researchers, and patients. Included in this manuscript are detailed overviews of proposed molecular classifications, novel biomarkers, contemporary treatment strategies, trials on systemic therapies, health-related quality-of-life studies, and management strategies for unique meningioma patient populations. In each section, we discuss the current state of knowledge as well as ongoing clinical and research challenges to road map future directions for further investigation.

Grading meningioma resections: the Simpson classification and beyond

Technological (and also methodological) advances in neurosurgery and neuroimaging have prompted a reappraisal of Simpson's grading of the extent of meningioma resections. To the authors, the published evidence supports the tenets of this classification. Meningioma is an often surgically curable dura-based disease. An extent of meningioma resection classification needs to account for a clinically meaningful variation of the risk of recurrence depending on the aggressiveness of the management of the (dural) tumor origin.Nevertheless, the 1957 Simpson classification undoubtedly suffers from many limitations. Important issues include substantial problems with the applicability of the grading paradigm in different locations. Most notably, tumor location and growth pattern often determine the eventual extent of resection, i.e., the Simpson grading does not reflect what is surgically achievable. Another very significant problem is the inherent subjectivity of relying on individual intraoperative assessments. Neuroimaging advances such as the use of somatostatin receptor PET scanning may help to overcome this central problem. Tumor malignancy and biology in general certainly influence the role of the extent of resection but may not need to be incorporated in an actual extent of resection grading scheme as long as one does not aim at developing a prognostic score. Finally, all attempts at grading meningioma resections use tumor recurrence as the endpoint. However, especially in view of radiosurgery/radiotherapy options, the clinical significance of recurrent tumor growth varies greatly between cases.In summary, while the extent of resection certainly matters in meningioma surgery, grading resections remains controversial. Given the everyday clinical relevance of this issue, a multicenter prospective register or study effort is probably warranted (including a prominent focus on advanced neuroimaging).

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review

Background

Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials.

Methods

Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative.

Results

Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas.

Conclusions

Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review

Background

The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative.

Results

Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas.

Conclusions

Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

Surgery in octogenarians with intracranial meningiomas improves functional outcome at 1 year

PURPOSE

The population is aging, and age remains an important factor in deciding surgical candidacy for intracranial tumors. The natural history and surgical behavior of meningiomas in octogenarians are not well understood. We evaluated the surgical and functional outcomes, including survival, among octogenarians with intracranial meningiomas in a single institution.

METHODS

The Tumor Registry (2004-2021) was used to identify octogenarian patients (ages 80-89) diagnosed with intracranial meningioma. Primary endpoints were 1-year survival and functional outcome measured with mRS postsurgery. Kaplan-Meier, univariable Log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox hazards proportional regression models were used for assessing factors associated with overall survival (OS) in octogenarians with meningiomas who underwent surgery; logistic regression and McNemar's were used to further characterize risk factors affecting functional surgical outcome at 1 year.

RESULTS

Thirty octogenarians with intracranial meningioma who underwent surgery were identified. Median age was 82.5 years and 66.6% were female patients. The 1-year median postsurgical survival probability for all octogenarians with meningioma was 86.3% and no intraoperative mortality was observed. Frailty (mFI-5, p = 0.84), tumor grade (p = 0.11), tumor size (p = 0.22), extent of resection (p = 0.35), and Karnofsky scale on admission (p = 0.93) did not significantly affect the survival in octogenarians with meningiomas which were treated surgically. The 1-year postoperative functional status of octogenarian meningioma patients who underwent surgery was significantly improved compared to pre-op mRS (McNemar's chi-squared = 9.6, df = 1, p-value = 0.001946).

CONCLUSION

In octogenarians with meningiomas, surgical intervention significantly improves the pre-operative modified Rankin Scale at 1 year postsurgery in this cohort.

Analysis of outcome reporting in common peroneal neuropathy studies: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

There is a strong need for the development of core outcome sets (COS) across nerve surgery to allow for improved data synthesis, meta-analyses, and reporting consistency. Development of a core outcome set typically starts with assessing the literature for previously reported outcome measures. Common peroneal neuropathy (CPN) is the most common compressive mononeuropathy of the lower extremity and can result in pain, motor, and sensory deficits. A COS for COmmon PEroneal neuropathy (COS-COPE) is needed to improve future study design and comparison and synthesis of data. The goal of the current study was to assess the literature for outcomes reported in studies on CPN as the first step in the development of a COS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2023 was performed utilizing PubMed and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Identified articles were screened according to study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Outcome measures reported in each included study were recorded and categorized into motor, sensory, pain, composite foot/ankle score, electrodiagnostics, function/disability patient-reported outcome (PRO), psychological, or other outcomes. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 31 articles met criteria for inclusion. A motor outcome was reported in 26 (83.9%) studies; 12 (38.7%) reported a sensory outcome; 8 (25.8%) reported a pain outcome; 4 (12.9%) reported a composite foot/ankle score; 3 (9.7%) reported electrodiagnostics; 1 (3.2%) reported a function/disability PRO; 1 (3.2%) reported a psychological outcome; 2 (6.5%) reported an imaging outcome; 3 (9.7%) reported other outcomes. Across the studies, 29 distinct outcome measures were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes reported in studies on CPN are varied and inconsistent. It is likely that a combination of motor, sensory, pain, and functional outcomes will be needed in a COS to best study CPN. These data will serve as a baseline for the ultimate development of the COS-COPE.

Hormone therapies in meningioma-where are we?

INTRODUCTION

Meningiomas are associated with several gonadal steroid hormone-related risk factors and demonstrate a predominance in females. These associations led to investigations of the role that hormones may have on meningioma growth and development. While it is now accepted that most meningiomas express progesterone and somatostatin receptors, the conclusion for other receptors has been less definitive.

METHODS

We performed a review of what is known regarding the relationship between hormones and meningiomas in the published literature. Furthermore, we reviewed clinical trials related to hormonal agents in meningiomas using MEDLINE PubMed, Scopus, and the NIH clinical trials database.

RESULTS

We identify that all steroid-hormone trials lacked receptor identification or positive receptor status in the majority of patients. In contrast, four out of five studies involving somatostatin analogs used positive receptor status as part of the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Several clinical trials have recently been completed or are now underway using somatostatin analogs in combination with other therapies that appear promising, but a reevaluation of hormone-based monotherapy is warranted. Synthesizing this evidence, we clarify the remaining questions and present future directions for the study of the biological role and therapeutic potential of hormones in meningioma and discuss how the stratification of patients using features such as grade, receptor status, and somatic mutations, might be used for future trials to select patients most likely to benefit from specific therapies.

Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study

Background

Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution.

Methods

A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified.

Results

In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting.

Conclusions

A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS.