PURPOSE SJMB03 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00085202 ) was a phase III risk-adapted trial that aimed to determine the frequency and clinical significance of biological variants and genetic alterations in medulloblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients 3-21 years old were stratified into average-risk and high-risk treatment groups based on metastatic status and extent of resection. Medulloblastomas were molecularly classified into subgroups (Wingless [WNT], Sonic Hedgehog [SHH], group 3, and group 4) and subtypes based on DNA methylation profiles and overlaid with gene mutations from next-generation sequencing. Coprimary study end points were (1) to assess the relationship between ERBB2 protein expression in tumors and progression-free survival (PFS), and (2) to estimate the frequency of mutations associated with WNT and SHH tumors. Clinical and molecular risk factors were evaluated, and the most robust were used to model new risk-classification categories. RESULTS Three hundred thirty eligible patients with medulloblastoma were enrolled. Five-year PFS was 83.2% (95% CI, 78.4 to 88.2) for average-risk patients (n = 227) and 58.7% (95% CI, 49.8 to 69.1) for high-risk patients (n = 103). No association was found between ERBB2 status and PFS in the overall cohort ( P = .74) or when patients were stratified by clinical risk ( P = .71). Mutations in CTNNB1 (96%), DDX3X (37%), and SMARCA4 (24%) were most common in WNT tumors and PTCH1 (38%), TP53 (21%), and DDX3X (19%) in SHH tumors. Methylome profiling classified 53 WNT (17.4%), 48 SHH (15.7%), 65 group 3 (21.3%), and 139 group 4 (45.6%) tumors. A comprehensive clinicomolecular risk factor analysis identified three low-risk groups (WNT, low-risk SHH, and low-risk combined groups 3 and 4) with excellent (5-year PFS > 90%) and two very high-risk groups (high-risk SHH and high-risk combined groups 3 and 4) with poor survival (5-year PFS < 60%). CONCLUSION These results establish a new risk stratification for future medulloblastoma trials.

A growing evidence base highlights the negative impact of poor psychosocial care at end-of-life. Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) 15-39 years of age with cancer face unique medical and psychosocial challenges that make them especially vulnerable when treatment is not successful. Although the importance of age-appropriate medical and psychosocial care is internationally recognized for AYAs across the cancer trajectory, there is little guidance on best-practice care and communication practices with AYAs as they approach the end-of-life. We conducted a narrative review and found evidence points to the potential benefits of introducing palliative care teams early in the care trajectory. Research undertaken to date emphasizes the importance of exploring AYAs' preferences around end-of-life issues in a repeated, consistent manner, and highlighted that AYAs may have strong preferences on a range of issues such as being able to stay in their own home, being comfortable and free from pain, and expressing their wishes to loved ones. We highlight a number of best-practice recommendations to guide clinicians around the critical elements of when, who, what, and how end-of-life conversations may be best facilitated with AYAs. Gaps in the evidence base remain, including research focusing on better understanding barriers and facilitators to timely, age-appropriate end-of-life communication for AYAs with different diagnoses, where discordance between AYA-parent preferences exists, and when AYAs die at home versus in hospital. We have proposed a new model to support clinicians and researchers to better conceptualize how interacting individual, familial, and sociocultural factors impact end-of-life communication with AYAs in clinical settings.

Background. The Institute of Medicine recommends that survivorship care plans (SCPs) be included in cancer survivorship care. Our meta-analysis compares patient-reported outcomes between SCP and no SCP (control) conditions for cancer survivors. Our systematic review examines the feasibility of implementing SCPs from survivors' and health care professionals' perspectives and the impact of SCPs on health care professionals' knowledge and survivorship care provision. Methods. We searched seven online databases (inception to April 22, 2018) for articles assessing SCP feasibility and health care professional outcomes. Randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes for SCP recipients versus controls were eligible for the meta-analysis. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using pooled standardized mean differences for each patient-reported outcome.Results. Eight articles were eligible for the meta-analysis (n = 1,286 survivors) and 50 for the systematic review (n = 18,949 survivors; n = 3,739 health care professionals). There were no significant differences between SCP recipients and controls at 6 months postintervention on selfreported cancer and survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, satisfaction with information provision, or selfefficacy or at 12 months on anxiety, cancer-specific distress, depression, or satisfaction with follow-up care. SCPs appear to be acceptable and potentially improve survivors' adherence to medical recommendations and health care professionals' knowledge of survivorship care and late effects. Conclusion. SCPs appear feasible but do not improve survivors' patient-reported outcomes. Research should ascertain whether this is due to SCP ineffectiveness, implementation issues, or inappropriate research design of comparative effectiveness studies. The Oncologist 2020;25:e351-e372 Implications for Practice: Several organizations recommend that cancer survivors receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) after their cancer treatment; however, the impact of SCPs on cancer survivors and health care professionals is unclear. This systematic review suggests that although SCPs appear to be feasible and may improve health care professionals' knowledge of late effects and survivorship care, there is no evidence that SCPs affect cancer survivors' patient-reported outcomes. In order to justify the ongoing implementation of SCPs, additional research should evaluate SCP implementation and the research design of comparative effectiveness studies. Discussion may also be needed regarding the possibility that SCPs are fundamentally ineffective.