Of course. So our review focused on the state of the field right now in terms of where cerebrospinal fluid or CSF biomarkers are at for patients with brain tumors, including both patients with gliomas and then also brain metastases, as well as other tumor subtypes. There are other really great reviews that have already been done on CSF as a biomarker source for patients with brain tumors...
Of course. So our review focused on the state of the field right now in terms of where cerebrospinal fluid or CSF biomarkers are at for patients with brain tumors, including both patients with gliomas and then also brain metastases, as well as other tumor subtypes. There are other really great reviews that have already been done on CSF as a biomarker source for patients with brain tumors. But our review, I really focused on some of the key variables that are not as frequently discussed in terms of the impact of anatomical location, tumor to CSF contact, blood-brain barrier disruption, which is something that we see in many patients with high-grade gliomas, and how variables like that can actually impact a variety of biomarkers that we would be interested in testing in CSF, whether that’s 2-hydroxyglutarate for patients with IDH mutant gliomas, cell-free DNA, which can be relevant for a variety of patients with brain tumors. And then more broadly as well, given how much new research there is in the field of CSF as a biomarker source. We also were really interested in conveying the opportunities associated with that as a liquid biopsy source in terms of how it can be integrated with plasma also as a liquid biopsy source, how to think about integrating CSF into our clinical trials and standard of care as we work on developing and validating different biomarker types, as well as then, you know, really common questions and difficulties that are encountered in the biomarker field. Like one of the main reasons why we’re interested in having liquid biopsy biomarkers is because we have such difficulties in distinguishing progression from radiation necrosis in patients with gliomas. But one of the reasons why we have difficulty in distinguishing them is that we often don’t get a tissue biopsy at the time of suspected recurrence. So if we’re using a biomarker to be able to differentiate progression from radiation necrosis, what do we use as a gold standard when we’re often not getting tissue? So some considerations like that of as liquid biopsies gain more and more traction in the field? Where and how can they be integrated into our standard of care and clinical trials? And, you know, how can we thoughtfully consider variables and benchmarks to be able to validate them?
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.
