Key findings • Ninety-eight percent of trials did not report using core outcome sets, even when relevant core outcome sets were available • Trialist reported barriers to core outcome set use included preference to choose their own outcomes and poor knowledge about existence of core outcome sets. • Trialist reported facilitators to core outcome set use included understanding of what core outcome sets are and and their perceived importance. What this adds to what is known • Core outcome sets are not typically used and/or reported in late phase trials published in major medical journals. What is the implication, what should change now? • There is scope for increased uptake of COS in clinical trials to improve evaluation of intervention effects and evidence syntheses, reduce research waste, and potentially improve patient care.

Core Outcome Sets (COS) define minimum outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical effectiveness trials for a particular health condition/health area. Despite recognition as critical to clinical research design for other health areas, none have been developed for neuro-oncology. COS development projects should carefully consider: scope (how the COS should be used), stakeholders involved in development (including patients as both research partners and participants), and consensus methodologies used (typically a Delphi survey and consensus meeting), as well as dissemination plans. Developing COS for neuro-oncology is potentially challenging due to extensive tumor subclassification (including molecular stratification), different symptoms related to anatomical tumor location, and variation in treatment options. Development of a COS specific to tumor subtype, in a specific location, for a particular intervention may be too narrow and would be unlikely to be used. Equally, a COS that is applicable across a wider area of neuro-oncology may be too broad and therefore lack specificity. This review describes why and how a COS may be developed, and discusses challenges for their development, specific to neuro-oncology. The COS under development are briefly described, including: adult glioma, incidental/untreated meningioma, meningioma requiring intervention, and adverse events from surgical intervention for pediatric brain tumors.

Background: Intracranial meningioma with bone involvement and primary intraosseous meningioma is uncommon. There is currently no consensus for optimal management. This study aimed to describe the management strategy and outcomes for a 10-year illustrative cohort, and propose an algorithm to aid clinicians in selecting cranioplasty material in such patients. Methods: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study (January 2010–August 2021). All adult patients requiring cranial reconstruction due to meningioma with bone involvement or primary intraosseous meningioma were included. Baseline patient and meningioma characteristics, surgical strategy, and surgical morbidity were examined. Descriptive statistics were performed using SPSS v24.0. Data visualisation was performed using R v4.1.0. Results: Thirty-three patients were identified (mean age 56 years; SD 15) There were 19 females. Twenty-nine patients had secondary bone involvement (88%). Four had primary intraosseous meningioma (12%). Nineteen had gross total resection (GTR; 58%). Thirty had primary ‘on-table’ cranioplasty (91%). Cranioplasty materials included pre-fabricated polymethyl methacrylate (pPMMA) (n = 12; 36%), titanium mesh (n = 10; 30%), hand-moulded polymethyl methacrylate cement (hPMMA) (n = 4; 12%), pre-fabricated titanium plate (n = 4; 12%), hydroxyapatite (n = 2; 6%), and a single case combining titanium mesh with hPMMA cement (n = 1; 3%). Five patients required reoperation for a postoperative complication (15%). Conclusion: Meningioma with bone involvement and primary intraosseous meningioma often requires cranial reconstruction, but this may not be evident prior to surgical resection. Our experience demonstrates that a wide variety of materials have been used successfully, but that pre-fabricated materials may be associated with fewer postoperative complications. Further research within this population is warranted to identify the most appropriate operative strategy.

The outcomes following re-operation for meningioma are poorly described. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for a performance status outcome following a second operation for a recurrent meningioma. A retrospective, comparative cohort study was conducted. The primary outcome measure was World Health Organization performance. Secondary outcomes were complications, and overall and progression free survival (OS and PFS respectively). Baseline clinical characteristics, tumor details, and operation details were collected. Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for performance status outcome following a second operation. Between 1988 and 2018, 712 patients had surgery for intracranial meningiomas, 56 (7.9%) of which underwent a second operation for recurrence. Fifteen patients (26.8%) had worsened performance status after the second operation compared to three (5.4%) after the primary procedure (p = 0.002). An increased number of post-operative complications following the second operation was associated with a poorer performance status following that procedure (odds ratio 2.2 [95% CI 1.1–4.6]). The second operation complication rates were higher than after the first surgery (46.4%, n = 26 versus 32.1%, n = 18, p = 0.069). The median OS was 312.0 months (95% CI 257.8–366.2). The median PFS following the first operation was 35.0 months (95% CI 28.9–41.1). Following the second operation, the median PFS was 68.0 months (95% CI 49.1–86.9). The patients undergoing a second operation for meningioma had higher rates of post-operative complications, which is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. The decisions surrounding second operations must be balanced against the surgical risks and should take patient goals into consideration.

Cranioplasty remains an essential procedure following craniectomy but is associated with high morbidity. We investigated factors associated with outcomes following first alloplastic cranioplasty.A ...

Introduction Meningioma 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 analysis Two 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 dissemination Institutional 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 number COMET study ID 1508