UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Assessment of disease status and surveillance after treatment in patients with primary brain tumors

Author
Patrick Y Wen, MD
Section Editor
Jay S Loeffler, MD
Deputy Editor
April F Eichler, MD, MPH

INTRODUCTION

For patients with primary brain tumors, appropriate management requires a determination of whether a patient is responding to therapy or is progressing. The integration of improvements in neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], computed tomography [CT], newer techniques) provides valuable information, but significant issues remain.

Developments in response criteria for both high-grade and low-grade gliomas are reviewed here. The management of these tumors is discussed separately:

(See "Clinical manifestations and initial surgical approach to patients with high-grade gliomas".)

(See "Initial postoperative therapy for glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma".)

(See "Adjuvant radiation therapy for high-grade gliomas".)

            
To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Sep 2017. | This topic last updated: Aug 31, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8:1277.
  2. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1963.
  3. Cairncross JG, Pexman JH, Rathbone MP, DelMaestro RF. Postoperative contrast enhancement in patients with brain tumor. Ann Neurol 1985; 17:570.
  4. Reardon DA, Galanis E, DeGroot JF, et al. Clinical trial end points for high-grade glioma: the evolving landscape. Neuro Oncol 2011; 13:353.
  5. Wen PY, Cloughesy TF, Ellingson BM, 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.
  6. Ellingson BM, Wen PY, van den Bent MJ, Cloughesy TF. Pros and cons of current brain tumor imaging. Neuro Oncol 2014; 16 Suppl 7:vii2.
  7. Okada H, Weller M, Huang R, et al. Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:e534.
  8. van den Bent MJ, Wefel JS, Schiff D, 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.
  9. Nayak L, DeAngelis LM, Brandes AA, et al. The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale: a tool to assess neurologic function for integration into the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Neuro Oncol 2017; 19:625.
  10. NCCN guidelines http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site.