PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

PURPOSE: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time, some limitations of these criteria were identified, and challenges emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. METHODS: Informed by data from studies evaluating the different criteria, updates to the RANO criteria are proposed (RANO 2.0). RESULTS: We recommend a standard set of criteria for both high- and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the postradiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than the postsurgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for comparison with subsequent scans. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks after radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, are required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for the evaluation of treatment for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (two-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH wild-type glioblastoma, the nonenhancing disease will no longer be evaluated except when assessing response to antiangiogenic agents. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant nonenhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and nonenhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION: The revised RANO 2.0 criteria refine response assessment in gliomas.

Evolving interest in meningioma, the most common primary brain tumor, has refined contemporary management of these tumors. Problematic, however, is the paucity of prospective clinical trials that provide an evidence-based algorithm for managing meningioma. This review summarizes the published literature regarding the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent meningioma, with an emphasis on outcomes stratified by WHO tumor grade. Specifically, this review focuses on patient outcomes following treatment (either adjuvant or at recurrence) with surgery or radiation therapy inclusive of radiosurgery and fractionated radiation therapy. Phase II trials for patients with meningioma have recently completed accrual within the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consortia, and Phase III studies are being developed. However, at present, there are no completed prospective, randomized trials assessing the role of either surgery or radiation therapy. Successful completion of future studies will require a multidisciplinary effort, dissemination of the current knowledge base, improved implementation of WHO grading criteria, standardization of response criteria and other outcome end points, and concerted efforts to address weaknesses in present treatment paradigms, particularly for patients with progressive or recurrent low-grade meningioma or with high-grade meningioma. In parallel efforts, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) subcommittees are developing a paper on systemic therapies for meningioma and a separate article proposing standardized end point and response criteria for meningioma.

To assess the accumulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) in the peripheral blood of patients with glioma and to define their heterogeneity and their immunosuppressive function. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from healthy control subjects and from patients with newly diagnosed glioma were stimulated with anti-CD3/anti-CD28 and T cells assessed for intracellular expression of interferon (IFN)-γ. Antibody staining of PBMCs from glioma patients and healthy donors (CD33, HLADR, CD15, and CD14) followed by 4-color flow cytometry analysis-defined MDSC levels in the peripheral blood. To assess the role of MDSCs in suppressing T cell IFNγ production, PBMCs were depleted of MDSCs using anti-CD33 and anti-CD15 antibody-coated beads prior to T cell stimulation. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to assess plasma arginase activity and the level of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Patients with glioblastoma have increased MDSC counts (CD33+HLADR-) in their blood that are composed of neutrophilic (CD15(+); >60%), lineage-negative (CD15(-)CD14(-); 31%), and monocytic (CD14(+); 6%) subsets. After stimulation, T cells from patients with glioblastoma had suppressed IFN-γ production when compared with healthy, age-matched donor T cells. Removal of MDSCs from the PBMCs with anti-CD33/CD15-coated beads significantly restored T cell function. Significant increases in arginase activity and G-CSF levels were observed in plasma specimens obtained from patients with glioblastoma. The accumulation of MDSCs in peripheral blood in patients with glioma likely promotes T cell immune suppression that is observed in this patient population. Increased plasma levels of arginase and G-CSF may relate to MDSC suppressor function and MDSC expansion, respectively, in patients with glioma.

Shifting the balance away from tumor‐mediated immune suppression toward tumor immune rejection is the conceptual foundation for a variety of immunotherapy efforts currently being tested. These efforts largely focus on activating antitumor immune responses but are confounded by multiple immune cell populations, including myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), which serve to suppress immune system function. We have identified immune‐suppressive MDSCs in the brains of GBM patients and found that they were in close proximity to self‐renewing cancer stem cells (CSCs). MDSCs were selectively depleted using 5‐flurouracil (5‐FU) in a low‐dose administration paradigm, which resulted in prolonged survival in a syngeneic mouse model of glioma. In coculture studies, patient‐derived CSCs but not nonstem tumor cells selectively drove MDSC‐mediated immune suppression. A cytokine screen revealed that CSCs secreted multiple factors that promoted this activity, including macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), which was produced at high levels by CSCs. Addition of MIF increased production of the immune‐suppressive enzyme arginase‐1 in MDSCs in a CXCR2‐dependent manner, whereas blocking MIF reduced arginase‐1 production. Similarly to 5‐FU, targeting tumor‐derived MIF conferred a survival advantage to tumor‐bearing animals and increased the cytotoxic T cell response within the tumor. Importantly, tumor cell proliferation, survival, and self‐renewal were not impacted by MIF reduction, demonstrating that MIF is primarily an indirect promoter of GBM progression, working to suppress immune rejection by activating and protecting immune suppressive MDSCs within the GBM tumor microenvironment. Stem Cells 2016;34:2026–2039

The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group is an international, multidisciplinary effort to develop new standardized response criteria for clinical trials in brain tumors. The RANO group identified knowledge gaps relating to the definitions of tumor response and progression after the use of surgical or surgically based treatments. To outline a proposal for new response and progression criteria for the assessment of the effects of surgery and surgically delivered therapies for patients with gliomas. The Surgery Working Group of RANO identified surgically related end-point evaluation problems that were not addressed in the original Macdonald criteria, performed an extensive literature review, and used a consensus-building process to develop recommendations for how to address these issues in the setting of clinical trials. Recommendations were formulated for surgically related issues, including imaging changes associated with surgical resection or surgically mediated adjuvant local therapies, the determination of progression in the setting where all enhancing tumor has been removed, and how new enhancement should be interpreted in the setting where local therapies that are known to produce nonspecific enhancement have been used. Additionally, the terminology used to describe the completeness of surgical resections has been recognized to be inconsistently applied to enhancing vs nonenhancing tumors, and a new set of descriptors is proposed. The RANO process is intended to produce end-point criteria for clinical trials that take into account the effects of prior and ongoing therapies. The RANO criteria will continue to evolve as new therapies and technologies are introduced into clinical trial and/or practice.