ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Inclusion of brain tumour patients in oncological protocols may be hampered by their neurological impairment. The goal of this study was to assess the reliability of Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and WHO Performance Scale (WHO-PS) scores in this population. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted through the Association des Neuro-Oncologues d'Expression Française (ANOCEF) and European Neuro-Oncology Association (EANO) networks. Clinicians were asked to write a text defining their operative definition of a patient with ≥ 70 KPS and to assess KPS and WHO-PS in six different clinical case vignettes. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six clinicians sent a response. The operative definition mentioned a normal life (89%), what patients were able (26%) or unable (29%) to do, normal cognitive processing (8%) and caregivers (6%). Older physicians mentioned more often what patients were unable to do (p = 0.005). The two scales were homogeneous in less severely handicapped patients only. More patients were excluded for hemiplegia than for expressive aphasia. Older physicians significantly excluded more patients for KPS and WHO-PS. Speciality of the physician significantly influenced scoring. On multivariable analysis, age and speciality of the physicians were correlated with KPS and WHO-PS rating even if adjusted on cases. Discordant scoring increased with severity of the deficit: in nearly all cases, the KPS would have denied, while WHO-PS would have allowed, access to a trial. CONCLUSION: Performance scores assigned to brain tumour patients are clinician and score dependant. WHO-PS would allow more access to a trial. Specific criteria should be developed for patients with neurological deficits to facilitate their access to trials.
Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms/epidemiology , Karnofsky Performance Status/standards , Adult , Bias , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , World Health OrganizationABSTRACT
RATIONALE: Second-line chemotherapy is disappointing in recurrent high-grade gliomas. Dramatic responses in recurrent high-grade gliomas have been reported in a recent monocentric trial with a novel association combining bevacizumab (anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody agent) and irinitecan. OBJECTIVE: To report the experience of the ANOCEF group (French speaking neuro-oncology association) using the bevacizumab-irinotecan combination in recurrent high-grade gliomas. METHODS: Eight centers were involved in this retrospective multicenter study. Bevacizumab-irinotecan was delivered as previously described in a compassional setting to non-selected patients suffering from a high-grade glioma (WHO grade III and IV). Response rate at two months of the onset of the treatment was analyzed using the Macdonald criteria. The toxicity profile of the treatment was also investigated. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2007, 77 patients were treated (median age: 52 years; median Karnofsky score: 70) for a recurrent high-grade glioma (49 grade IV, 28 grade III). At two months, the response rates were objective response=36% (54% in grade III and 27% in grade IV); stable disease=39%; progressive disease=13%; patients not evaluable because of a rapid fatal clinical deterioration=12%. Improvement was noted in 49% of patients. Among the main toxicities, we noted; intratumoral hemorrage (n=5 with spontaneous regression in three) and thromboembolic complications including venous thrombophlebitis (n=4), pulmonary embolism (n=2), myocardial infarction (n=1), grade III-IV hematotoxicity (n=2), reversible leukoencephalopathy (n=1). CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter study adds further arguments in favor of the promising results of this new combination and its potential rapidity of action in recurrent high-grade gliomas. Antiangiogenic agents expose the patients to a well-known risk of thromboembolic and hemorragic complications, necessitating careful follow-up and patient selection in light of the cardiovascular contraindications.
