Evaluation of the response assessment criteria in newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma.
Authors: Youssef Gilbert , Rahman Rifaquat , Lim-Fat Mary Jane , Bay Camden , Bi Wenya Linda L. , Cagney Daniel , Chang YuhShin , Desalvo Matthew Nicholas , Flood Thomas , Gerstner Elizabeth R. , Gonzalez Castro Luis Nicolas , Guenette Jeffrey , Kim Albert Eusik , Lee Eudocia Quant , McFaline Figueroa J. Ricardo Ricardo , Potter Christopher , Reardon David A. , Ellingson Benjamin M. , Huang Raymond Yi-kun , Wen Patrick Y. 
Published: June 2022

2020 Background: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) and modified RANO (mRANO) criteria are the two most widely used criteria to evaluate treatment response in glioblastoma (GBM) clinical trials. Unlike RANO, mRANO omits the evaluation of FLAIR sequence and requires a repeat scan to confirm responses. It also uses the post-radiation (RT) MRI as a baseline MRI in the newly diagnosed setting instead of the pre-RT MRI used in RANO. We sought to compare the 2 response assessment criteria and evaluate the differences between them in a large patient population. We also sought to compare them to immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) in patients who received immunotherapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed (nGBM) and recurrent (rGBM) IDH wild-type GBM treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from 2014 to 2020. Bidimensional measurements of enhancing disease and evaluation of FLAIR sequences were performed by two independent readers on patients’ brain MRIs obtained before change of treatment, and discrepancies were evaluated by a third reader. Dates of disease progression (PD) were identified using RANO, mRANO, iRANO, and other response assessment criteria variations. Spearman’s correlations between PFS and OS were calculated using an iterative multiple imputation method to account for any right-censoring. Results: 526 and 580 patients were included in the newly diagnosed and recurrent cohorts, respectively. Spearman’s correlations were not significantly different between RANO and mRANO in the nGBM (0.69 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.75] vs. 0.67 [0.60, 0.73]) and rGBM (0.45 [0.37, 0.52] vs. 0.50 [0.42, 0.57]) cohorts. Evaluation of FLAIR sequences did not improve the correlation between PFS and OS in patients who received antiangiogenic therapy. Addition of confirmation scans was associated with stronger Spearman’s correlations only when PD was identified within 12 weeks of completion of RT in the nGBM cohort, but did not affect the Spearman’s correlations in the rGBM cohort. The use of the post-RT MRI as a baseline was associated with a higher Spearman’s correlation in nGBM than the use of pre-RT MRI (0.67 [0.60, 0.73] vs. 0.53 [0.42, 0.62]). Among 98 patients with nGBM and 175 patients with rGBM who received immunotherapy, the Spearman’s correlations (nGBM and rGBM) with iRANO (0.63 [0.44, 0.76] and 0.34 [0.17, 0.49]) were similar to RANO (0.73 [0.60, 0.82] and 0.42 [0.28, 0.54]) and mRANO (0.65 [0.48, 0.77] and 0.43 [0.28, 0.56]). Conclusions: RANO and mRANO demonstrated similar correlation between PFS and OS. The evaluation of FLAIR can be omitted, while confirmation scans appear to be only beneficial in the nGBM settings during the first 12 weeks of completion of RT. There was a nonsignificant trend in favor of the use of post-RT MRI as the baseline scan in the nGBM setting. The application of iRANO criteria did not add significant benefit in patients who received immunotherapy.