Background Asymptomatic meningioma is a common incidental finding with no consensus on the optimal management strategy. We aimed to develop a prognostic model to guide personalized monitoring of incidental meningioma patients. Methods A prognostic model of disease progression was developed in a retrospective cohort (2007–2015), defined as: symptom development, meningioma-specific mortality, meningioma growth or loss of window of curability. Secondary endpoints included non-meningioma-specific mortality and intervention. Results Included were 441 patients (459 meningiomas). Over a median of 55 months (interquartile range, 37–80), 44 patients had meningioma progression and 57 died (non-meningioma-specific). Forty-four had intervention (at presentation, n = 6; progression, n = 20; nonprogression, n = 18). Model parameters were based on statistical and clinical considerations and included: increasing meningioma volume (hazard ratio [HR] 2.17; 95% CI: 1.53–3.09), meningioma hyperintensity (HR 10.6; 95% CI: 5.39–21.0), peritumoral signal change (HR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.65–3.85), and proximity to critical neurovascular structures (HR 1.38; 95% CI: 0.74–2.56). Patients were stratified based on these imaging parameters into low-, medium- and high-risk groups and 5-year disease progression rates were 3%, 28%, and 75%, respectively. After 5 years of follow-up, the risk of disease progression plateaued in all groups. Patients with an age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index ≥6 (eg, an 80-year-old with chronic kidney disease) were 15 times more likely to die of other causes than to receive intervention at 5 years following diagnosis, regardless of risk group. Conclusions The model shows that there is little benefit to rigorous monitoring in low-risk and older patients with comorbidities. Risk-stratified follow-up has the potential to reduce patient anxiety and associated health care costs.

Background Brain cancer has a strong impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and its evaluation in clinical practice can improve the quality of care provided. The aim of this project was to integrate routine collection of HRQoL information from patients with brain tumor or metastasis in 2 specialized United Kingdom tertiary centers, and to evaluate the implementation process. Methods Since October 2016, routine collection of electronic self-reported HRQoL information has been progressively embedded in the participating centers using standard questionnaires. During the first year, the project was implemented, and the process evaluated, through regular cycles of process evaluation followed by an action plan, monitoring of questionnaire completion rates, and assessment of patient views. Results Main challenges encountered included reluctance to change usual practice and limited resources. Key measures for success included strong leadership of senior staff, involvement of stakeholders in project design and evaluation, and continuous strategic support to professionals. Final project workflow included 6 process steps, 1 decision step, and 4 outputs. Questionnaires were mostly self-completed (75.1%), and completion took 6-9 minutes. Most patients agreed that the questionnaire items were easy to understand (97.0%), important for them (93.0%), and helped them think what they wanted to discuss in their clinical consultation (75.4%). Conclusions Integrating HRQoL information as a routine part of clinical assessments has the potential to enhance individually tailored patient care in our institutions. Challenges involved in innovations of this nature can be overcome through a systematic approach involving strong leadership, wide stakeholder engagement, and strategic planning.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the experience of patients with brain tumors and their carers across distinct parts of their treatment pathway and identify their views on potential service gaps in need of addressing.MethodsA structured survey was administered at patient workshops across the UK and online through a charity newsletter. Answers to closed questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and open questions were examined using techniques of inductive content analysis.ResultsA total of 136 survey responses were received, representing patients with a variety of diagnoses and geographical locations (30 counties). There was a wide range of opinions on the provision of current neuro-oncology services. Key themes identified included a perceived lack of information provision, a gap in postdischarge psychological and neuropsychological supports, and an unmet willingness for involvement in research.ConclusionThis national survey enhances our knowledge of current patient and carer experience within neuro-oncology services. A number of areas of unmet clinical need are highlighted providing a basis for informing future patient-centered service improvements and research.

No abstract

IntroductionMeningioma is the most common primary intracranial tumour in adults. The majority are non-malignant, but a proportion behave more aggressively. Incidental/minimally symptomatic meningioma are often managed by serial imaging. Symptomatic meningioma, those that threaten neurovascular structures, or demonstrate radiological growth, are usually resected as first-line management strategy. For patients in poor clinical condition, or with inoperable, residual or recurrent disease, radiotherapy is often used as primary or adjuvant treatment. Effective pharmacotherapy treatments do not currently exist. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical studies. Two ‘Core Outcome Sets’ (COS) will be developed: (COSMIC: Intervention) for use in meningioma clinical effectiveness trials and (COSMIC: Observation) for use in clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma.Methods and analysisTwo systematic literature reviews and trial registry searches will identify outcomes measured and reported in published and ongoing (1) meningioma clinical effectiveness trials, and (2) clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. Outcomes include those that are clinician reported, patient reported, caregiver reported and based on objective tests (eg, neurocognitive tests), as well as measures of progression and survival. Outcomes will be deduplicated and categorised to generate two long lists. The two long lists will be prioritised through two, two-round, international, modified eDelphi surveys including patients with meningioma, healthcare professionals, researchers and those in caring/supporting roles. The two final COS will be ratified through two 1-day online consensus meetings, with representation from all stakeholder groups.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional review board (University of Liverpool) approval was obtained for the conduct of this study. Participant eConsent will be obtained prior to participation in the eDelphi surveys and consensus meetings. The two systematic literature reviews and two final COS will be published and freely available.Trial registration numberCOMET study ID 1508