EC Neurology

Background: The current era of molecular characterisation has contributed greatly to our understanding and management of low-grade gliomas; however, this has also contributed to a paucity in level 1 evidence.

Review: Diagnostic breakthroughs in LGGs are moving quicker than our experimental capacity can react. The design, analysis, and clinical application of first level evidence is struggling to compete with the considerable variability in the natural course of LGGs and the rapidly evolving utility of molecular characterisation of tumours. This poses several uncertainties to researchers, clinicians and more importantly, patients.

Conclusion: Individualised case-by-case decisions based on best available evidence, albeit lacking level 1 evidence, must be made by considering the tumour behaviour, clinical course and specific patient needs and goals.

 Keywords: Biomarkers; Glioma; Low-Grade; Astrocytoma; Oligodendroglioma

1. Duffau H. “Paradoxes of evidence-based medicine in lower-grade glioma: To treat the tumour or the patient”. Neurology14 (2018): 657-662.
2. Weller M., et al. “EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood”. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 3 (2021): 170-186.
3. Shaw EG., et al. “Randomized trial of radiation therapy plus procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy for supratentorial adult low-grade glioma: initial results of RTOG 9802”. Journal of Clinical Oncology 25 (2012): 30-65.
4. Lu VM., et al. “The prognostic significance of CDKN2A homozygous deletion in IDH-mutant lower-grade glioma and glioblastoma: a systematic review of the contemporary literature”. Journal of Neuro-Oncology 2 (2020): 221-229.
5. Jenkins RB., et al. “A t (1 19)(q10 p10) mediates the combined deletions of 1p and 19q and predicts a better prognosis of patients with oligodendroglioma”. Cancer Research20 (2006): 9852-9861.
6. Baumert BG., et al. “Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study”. The Lancet Oncology11 (2016): 1521-1532.
7. Jakola AS., et al. “Surgical resection versus watchful waiting in low-grade gliomas”. Annals of Oncology 8 (2017): 1942-1948.
8. Jaeckle KA., et al. “CODEL: phase III study of RT, RT+ TMZ, or TMZ for newly diagnosed 1p/19q co-deleted oligodendroglioma, Analysis from the initial study design”. Neuro-Oncology 3 (2021): 457-467.
9. Buckner JC., et al. “Radiation plus procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine in low-grade glioma”. New England Journal of Medicine 374 (2016): 1344-1355.
10. Bent MJ., et al. “Adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma (CATNON EORTC study 26053-22054): second interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study”. Lancet Oncology6 (2021): 813-823.
11. Jakola AS., et al. “Comparison of a strategy favouring early surgical resection vs a strategy favouring watchful waiting in low-grade gliomas”. Journal of the American Medical Association18 (2012): 1881-1888.
12. Zeng L., et al. “A survival analysis of surgically treated incidental low-grade glioma patients”. Scientific Reports 1 (2021): 8522.
13. Roelz R., et al. “Residual tumor volume as best outcome predictor in low grade glioma–a nine-years near-randomized survey of surgery vs. biopsy”. Scientific Reports 6 (2016): 32286.
14. Solomons MR., et al. “Seizure outcomes and survival in adult low-grade glioma over 11 years: living longer and better”. Neuro-Oncology Practice 2 (2020): 196-201.
15. Cordier D., et al. “A better surgical resectability of WHO grade II gliomas is independent of favorable molecular markers”. Journal of Neuro-Oncology 1 (2015): 185-193.
16. Hamer PDW., et al. “Impact of intraoperative stimulation brain mapping on glioma surgery outcome: a meta-analysis”. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20 (2012): 2559-2565.
17. Recht LD., et al. “Suspected low‐grade glioma: is deferring treatment safe”. Annals of Neurology 4 (1992): 431-436.