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-Oncology

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 625-635

  Nayak, Lakshmi ^a   Deangelis, Lisa M ^b   Brandes, Alba A ^c   Peereboom, David M ^d   Galanis, Evanthia ^e   Lin, Nancy U ^a   Soffietti, Riccardo ^f   MacDonald, David R ^g   Chamberlain, Marc ^h   Perry, James ⁱ   Jaeckle, Kurt ^j   Mehta, Minesh ^k   Stupp, Roger ^l   Muzikansky, Alona ^m   Pentsova, Elena ^b   Cloughesy, Timothy ⁿ   Iwamoto, Fabio M ^o   Tonn, Joerg Christian ^p   Vogelbaum, Michael A ^d   Wen, Patrick Y ^a   Van Den Bent, Martin J ^q   Reardon, David A ^a   more..

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c IRCCS ISTITUTO DELLE SCIENZE NEUROLOGICHE DI BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^d LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^j MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^k MIAMI CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^m MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁿ UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^o NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^q ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

more..

Author keywords

Brain tumor; Neurologic function; Outcome; Response criteria

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATAXIA; BRAIN TUMOR; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CONSCIOUSNESS; FACE MUSCLE; FEMALE; GAIT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; NEUROLOGIC ASSESSMENT IN NEURO ONCOLOGY SCALE; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; NEUROLOGIST; NEUROSURGEON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION ONCOLOGIST; SENSATION; STRENGTH; VISUAL FIELD; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; NEUROIMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; NEUROIMAGING; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85019146511     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nox029     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Booth CM, Tannock I. Refections on medical oncology: 25 years of clinical trials-where have we come and where are we going? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(1):6-8.
2. Wilson MK, Karakasis K, Oza AM. Outcomes and endpoints in trials of cancer treatment: the past, present, and future. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(1):e32-e42.
3. Helfer JL, Wen PY, Blakeley J, Gilbert MR, Armstrong TS. Report of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition and FDA clinical trials clinical outcome assessment endpoints workshop (October 15, 2014, Bethesda MD). Neuro Oncol. 2016; 18 Suppl 2: ii26-ii36.
4. Armstrong TS, Bishof AM, Brown PD, Klein M, Taphoorn MJ, Theodore-Oklota C. Determining priority signs and symptoms for use as clinical outcomes assessments in trials including patients with malignant glio-mas: Panel 1 Report. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18 Suppl 2:ii1-ii12.
5. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assess-ment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963-1972.
6. 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(6):583-593.
7. Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, et al.; Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group. Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 1: patient population, response, and progression. A report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):e396-e406.
8. Lin NU, Wefel JS, Lee EQ, et al.; Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group. Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 2: neurocognitive, neurological, and quality-of-life outcomes. A report from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):e407-e416.
9. Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, et al.; Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(6):e270-e278.
10. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(7):1277-1280.
11. Armstrong TS, Gilbert MR. Net clinical beneft: functional endpoints in brain tumor clinical trials. Curr Oncol Rep. 2007;9(1):60-65.
12. Armstrong TS, Mendoza T, Gning I, et al. Validation of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor module (MDASI-BT). J Neurooncol. 2006;80(1):27-35.
13. Armstrong TS, Vera-Bolanos E, Gning I, et al. The impact of symptom interference using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor module (MDASI-BT) on prediction of recurrence in primary brain tumor patients. Cancer. 2011;117(14):3222-3228.
14. Walker M, Brown J, Brown K, Gregor A, Whittle IR, Grant R. Practical problems with the collection and interpretation of serial quality of life assessments in patients with malignant glioma. J Neurooncol. 2003;63(2):179-186.
15. Orr ST, Aisner J. Performance status assessment among oncology patients: a review. Cancer Treat Rep. 1986;70(12):1423-1429.
16. Roila F, Lupattelli M, Sassi M, et al. Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients' performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales. Ann Oncol. 1991;2(6):437-439.
17. Hutchinson TA, Boyd NF, Feinstein AR, Gonda A, Hollomby D, Rowat B. Scientifc problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(9-10):661-666.
18. Dick J P, Guiloff RJ, Stewart A, et al. Mini-Mental State Examination in neurological patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984;47(5):496-499.
19. Meyers CA, Brown PD. Role and relevance of neurocognitive assess-ment in clinical trials of patients with CNS tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(8):1305-1309.
20. Meyers CA, Hess KR. Multifaceted end points in brain tumor clinical trials: cognitive deterioration precedes MRI progression. Neuro Oncol. 2003;5(2):89-95.
21. Herndon RM. Handbook of Neurologic Rating Scales. 2nd ed. New York: Demos Medical Publishing; 2006.
22. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger C P, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20(7):864-870.
23. Kurtzke J F. Further notes on disability evaluation in multiple sclerosis, with scale modifcations. Neurology. 1965;15:654-661.
24. Cedarbaum JM, Stambler N, Malta E, et al. The ALSFRS-R: a revised ALS functional rating scale that incorporates assessments of res-piratory function. BDNF ALS Study Group (Phase III). J Neurol Sci. 1999;169(1-2):13-21.
25. Iwamoto FM, Cooper AR, Reiner AS, Nayak L, Abrey LE. Glioblastoma in the elderly: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience (1997-2007). Cancer. 2009;115(16):3758-3766.
26. Armstrong TS, Cohen MZ, Eriksen LR, Hickey JV. Symptom clusters in oncology patients and implications for symptom research in people with primary brain tumors. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36(3):197-206.
27. Chamberlain M, Soffetti R, Raizer J, et al. Leptomeningeal metastasis: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology critical review of endpoints and response criteria of published randomized clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(9):1176-1185.
28. Chamberlain M, Junck L, Brandsma D, et al. Leptomeningeal metasta-ses: a RANO proposal for response criteria. Neuro Oncol. 2016; 16(Suppl 2): ii56.
29. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276-282.
30. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
31. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360-363.
32. Cohen J. A coeffcient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960; (20):37-46.
33. Goldstein LB, Bertels C, Davis JN. Interrater reliability of the NIH stroke scale. Arch Neurol. 1989;46(6):660-662.
34. Côté R, Battista RN, Wolfson C, Boucher J, Adam J, Hachinski V. The Canadian Neurological Scale: validation and reliability assessment. Neurology. 1989;39(5):638-643.
35. D'Olhaberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH. A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke. Stroke. 1996;27(12):2331-2336.
36. Shinar D, Gross CR, Mohr J P, et al. Interobserver variability in the assessment of neurologic history and examination in the stroke data bank. Arch Neurol. 1985;42(6):557-565.