4.7 Article

Conclusions and future directions for the REiNS International Collaboration

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 21, Pages S41-S44

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000435748.79908.c5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Children's Tumor Foundation
  2. intramural research program of the Center for Cancer Research, NCI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) International Collaboration was established with the goal to develop consensus recommendations for the use of endpoints in neurofibromatosis (NF) clinical trials. This supplement includes the first series of REiNS recommendations for the use of patient-reported, functional, and visual outcomes, and for the evaluation of imaging response in NF clinical trials. Recommendations for neurocognitive outcome measures, the use of whole-body MRI in NF, the evaluation of potential biomarkers of disease, and the comprehensive evaluation of functional and patient-reported outcomes in NF are in development. The REiNS recommendations are made based on current knowledge. Experience with the use of the recommended endpoints in clinical trials, development of new tools and technologies, new knowledge of the natural history of NF, and advances in the methods used to analyze endpoints will likely lead to modifications of the currently proposed guidelines, which will be shared with the NF research community through the REiNS Web site www.reinscollaboration.org. Due to the clinical complexity of NF, there is a need to seek expertise from multiple medical disciplines, regulatory agencies, and industry to develop trial endpoints and designs, which will lead to the identification and approval of effective treatments for NF tumor and nontumor manifestations. The REiNS Collaboration welcomes anyone interested in providing his or her expertise toward this effort.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available