151
|
Abstract
Diffuse WHO grade II gliomas are histologically and genetically heterogeneous. The 2016 WHO classification redefines grade II gliomas with respect to morphological and molecular tumour alterations: grade II oligodendrogliomas are defined by the presence of whole-arm codeletion in chromosomal arms 1p/19q, whereas isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations define subclasses of astrocytoma. Although histological grade remains useful, the prognoses of patients with glioma are more tightly associated with molecular alterations than with grade, and chromosomal and gene array technologies are becoming increasingly beneficial in understanding tumour genetic heterogeneity. The indolent nature of the disease often creates subtle neurological symptoms that can be overlooked or misunderstood, resulting in delayed diagnosis. Seizures often herald the diagnosis, especially in patients who have IDH mutations, which are associated with an increased production of 2-hydroxyglutarate. Treatment paradigms have shifted, owing to new diagnostic criteria and new clinical trial evidence. Patients benefit more from chemoradiation than radiation alone, especially those with tumour IDH1 Arg132His mutations; gross total resection of the tumour, including tumours with IDH mutations, is associated with prolonged survival. Initial observation remains appropriate in patients whose rate of disease growth is not yet completely defined; such patients could include those with completely resected disease and those with 1p/19q codeleted tumours.
Collapse
|
152
|
Gupta PK, Awasthi R, Singh S, Behari S, Maria Das KJ, Gupta RK, Kumar S. Value of Minimum Apparent Diffusion Coefficient on Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Biomarker for Predicting Progression of Disease Following Surgery and Radiotherapy in Glial Tumors from a Tertiary Care Center in Northern India. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2017; 8:185-193. [PMID: 28479790 PMCID: PMC5402482 DOI: 10.4103/0976-3147.203823] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Studies have shown that cellularity of glial tumors are inversely correlated to minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values derived on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The purpose of this prospective exploratory study was to evaluate whether temporal change in “minimum ADC” values during follow-up predict progressive disease in glial tumors post radiotherapy and surgery. Materials and Methods: Adult patients of glial tumors, subjected to surgery followed by Radiotherapy (RT), were included in the study. Serial conventional magnetic resonance imaging with DWI at the following time points – presurgery, pre-RT, post-RT imaging at 3, 7, and 15 months were done. For “minimum ADC” values, multiple regions of interest (ROI) were identified on ADC maps derived from DWI. A mean of 5 minimum ADC values was chosen as “minimum ADC” value. The correlation was drawn between histology and minimum ADC values and time trends were studied. Results: Fourteen patients were included in this study. Histologies were low-grade glioma (LGG) – 5, anaplastic oligodendroglioma (ODG) -5, and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) – 4. Minimum ADC values were significantly higher in LGG and GBM than ODG. Presurgery, the values were 0.812, 0.633, and 0.787 × 10−3 mm2/s for LGG, ODG, and GBM, respectively. DWI done at the time of RT planning showed values of 0.786, 0.636, 0.869 × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively. During follow-up, the increasing trend of minimum ADC was observed in LGG (P = 0.02). All these patients were clinically and radiologically stable. Anaplastic ODGs, however, showed an initial increase followed by the fall of minimum ADC in all the 5 cases (P = 0.00). Four of the five cases developed progressive disease subsequently. In all the 4 GBM cases, a consistent fall of minimum ADC values was observed (P = 0.00), and they all progressed in spite of RT. Conclusions: The DWI-derived minimum ADC values are an important yet simple quantitative tool to assess the treatment response and disease progression before they are evident on conventional imaging during the follow-up of glial tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pramod Kumar Gupta
- Department of Radiotherapy, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Rishi Awasthi
- Department of Radio Diagnosis, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Shalini Singh
- Department of Radiotherapy, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Sanjay Behari
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - K J Maria Das
- Department of Radiotherapy, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Rakesh Kumar Gupta
- Department of Radio Diagnosis, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Shaleen Kumar
- Department of Radiotherapy, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| |
Collapse
|
153
|
Central nervous system gliomas. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2017; 113:213-234. [DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.03.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2016] [Revised: 03/16/2017] [Accepted: 03/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
|
154
|
Jiang B, Chaichana K, Veeravagu A, Chang SD, Black KL, Patil CG. Biopsy versus resection for the management of low-grade gliomas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4:CD009319. [PMID: 28447767 PMCID: PMC6478300 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009319.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 4.Low-grade gliomas (LGG) constitute a class of slow-growing primary brain neoplasms. Patients with clinically and radiographically suspected LGG have two initial surgical options, biopsy or resection. Biopsy can provide a histological diagnosis with minimal risk but does not offer a direct treatment. Resection may have additional benefits such as increasing survival and delaying recurrence, but is associated with a higher risk for surgical morbidity. There remains controversy about the role of biopsy versus resection and the relative clinical outcomes for the management of LGG. OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical effectiveness of biopsy compared to surgical resection in patients with a new lesion suspected to be a LGG. SEARCH METHODS The following electronic databases were searched in 2012 for the first version of the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November week 3 2012), Embase (1980 to Week 46 2012). For this updated version, the following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Nov 2012 to June week 3 2016), Embase (Nov 2012 to 2016 week 26). All relevant articles were identified on PubMed and by using the 'related articles' feature. We also searched unpublished and grey literature including ISRCTN-metaRegister of Controled Trials, Physicians Data Query and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We planned to include patients of any age with a suspected intracranial LGG receiving biopsy or resection within a randomized clinical trial (RCT) or controlled clinical trial (CCT). Patients with prior resections, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy for LGG were excluded. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functionally independent survival (FIS), adverse events, symptom control, and quality of life (QoL). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS A total of 1375 updated citations were searched and critically analyzed for relevance. This was undertaken independently by two review authors. The original electronic database searches yielded a total of 2764 citations. In total, 4139 citations have been critically analyzed for this updated review. MAIN RESULTS No new RCTs of biopsy or resection for LGG were identified. No additional ineligible non-randomized studies (NRS) were included in this updated review. Twenty other ineligible studies were previously retrieved for further analysis despite not meeting the pre-specified criteria. Ten studies were retrospective or were literature reviews. Three studies were prospective, however they were limited to tumor recurrence and volumetric analysis and extent of resection. One study was a population-based parallel cohort in Norway, but not an RCT. Four studies were RCTs, however patients were randomized with respect to varying radiotherapy regimens to assess timing and dose of radiation. One RCT was on high-grade gliomas (HGGs) and not LGG. Finally, one RCT evaluated diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based neuro-navigation for surgical resection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Since the last version of this review, no new studies have been identified for inclusion and currently there are no RCTs or CCTs available on which to base definitive clinical decisions. Therefore, physicians must approach each case individually and weigh the risks and benefits of each intervention until further evidence is available. Some retrospective studies and non-randomized prospective studies do seem to suggest improved OS and seizure control correlating to higher extent of resection. Future research could focus on RCTs to determine outcomes benefits for biopsy versus resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bowen Jiang
- Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21287
| | - Kaisorn Chaichana
- Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21287
| | - Anand Veeravagu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford School of Medicine, 679 Oxford Ave, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 94306
| | - Steven D Chang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford School of Medicine, 679 Oxford Ave, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 94306
| | - Keith L Black
- Department of Neurosurgery, Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8631 West Third Street, Suite 800E, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 90048
| | - Chirag G Patil
- Department of Neurosurgery, Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8631 West Third Street, Suite 800E, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 90048
| |
Collapse
|
155
|
Nanda RH, Ganju RG, Schreibmann E, Chen Z, Zhang C, Jegadeesh N, Cassidy R, Deng C, Eaton BR, Esiashvili N. Correlation of Acute and Late Brainstem Toxicities With Dose-Volume Data for Pediatric Patients With Posterior Fossa Malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 98:360-366. [PMID: 28463155 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2016] [Revised: 02/14/2017] [Accepted: 02/21/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation-induced brainstem toxicity after treatment of pediatric posterior fossa malignancies is incompletely understood, especially in the era of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The rates of, and predictive factors for, brainstem toxicity after photon RT for posterior fossa tumors were examined. METHODS AND MATERIALS After institutional review board approval, 60 pediatric patients treated at our institution for nonmetastatic infratentorial ependymoma and medulloblastoma with IMRT were included in the present analysis. Dosimetric variables, including the mean and maximum dose to the brainstem, the dose to 10% to 90% of the brainstem (in 10% increments), and the volume of the brainstem receiving 40, 45, 50, and 55 Gy were recorded for each patient. Acute (onset within 3 months) and late (>3 months of RT completion) RT-induced brainstem toxicities with clinical and radiographic correlates were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. RESULTS Patients aged 1.4 to 21.8 years underwent IMRT or volumetric arc therapy postoperatively to the posterior fossa or tumor bed. At a median clinical follow-up period of 2.8 years, 14 patients had developed symptomatic brainstem toxicity (crude incidence 23.3%). No correlation was found between the dosimetric variables examined and brainstem toxicity. Vascular injury or ischemia showed a strong trend toward predicting brainstem toxicity (P=.054). Patients with grade 3 to 5 brainstem toxicity had undergone treatment to significant volumes of the posterior fossa. CONCLUSION The results of the present series demonstrate a low, but not negligible, risk of brainstem radiation necrosis for pediatric patients with posterior fossa malignancies treated with IMRT. No specific dose-volume correlations were identified; however, modern treatment volumes might help limit the incidence of severe toxicity. Additional work investigating inherent biologic sensitivity might also provide further insight into this clinical problem.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ronica H Nanda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
| | - Rohit G Ganju
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Edward Schreibmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Zhengjia Chen
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Chao Zhang
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Naresh Jegadeesh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Richard Cassidy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Claudia Deng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Bree R Eaton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Natia Esiashvili
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University College of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
156
|
Hartl BA, Ma HSW, Hansen KS, Perks J, Kent MS, Fragoso RC, Marcu L. The effect of radiation dose on the onset and progression of radiation-induced brain necrosis in the rat model. Int J Radiat Biol 2017; 93:676-682. [PMID: 28306402 DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2017.1297902] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide a comprehensive understanding of how the selection of radiation dose affects the temporal and spatial progression of radiation-induced necrosis in the rat model. MATERIALS AND METHODS Necrosis was induced with a single fraction of radiation exposure, at doses ranging between 20 and 60 Gy, to the right hemisphere of 8-week-old Fischer rats from a linear accelerator. The development and progression of necrosis in the rats was monitored and quantified every other week with T1- and T2-weighted gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI studies. RESULTS The time to onset of necrosis was found to be dose-dependent, but after the initial onset, the necrosis progression rate and total volume generated was constant across different doses ranging between 30 and 60 Gy. Radiation doses less than 30 Gy did not develop necrosis within 33 weeks after treatment, indicating a dose threshold existing between 20 and 30 Gy. CONCLUSION The highest dose used in this study led to the shortest time to onset of radiation-induced necrosis, while producing comparable disease progression dynamics after the onset. Therefore, for the radiation-induced necrosis rat model using a linear accelerator, the most optimum results were generated from a dose of 60 Gy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brad A Hartl
- a Department of Biomedical Engineering , University of California Davis , Davis , CA , USA
| | - Htet S W Ma
- a Department of Biomedical Engineering , University of California Davis , Davis , CA , USA
| | - Katherine S Hansen
- b Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences , University of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine , Davis , CA , USA
| | - Julian Perks
- c Department of Radiation Oncology , University of California Davis School of Medicine , Davis , CA , USA
| | - Michael S Kent
- b Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences , University of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine , Davis , CA , USA
| | - Ruben C Fragoso
- c Department of Radiation Oncology , University of California Davis School of Medicine , Davis , CA , USA
| | - Laura Marcu
- a Department of Biomedical Engineering , University of California Davis , Davis , CA , USA
| |
Collapse
|
157
|
Delgado-López PD, Corrales-García EM, Martino J, Lastra-Aras E, Dueñas-Polo MT. Diffuse low-grade glioma: a review on the new molecular classification, natural history and current management strategies. Clin Transl Oncol 2017; 19:931-944. [PMID: 28255650 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-017-1631-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 75] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2016] [Accepted: 02/14/2017] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
The management of diffuse supratentorial WHO grade II glioma remains a challenge because of the infiltrative nature of the tumor, which precludes curative therapy after total or even supratotal resection. When possible, functional-guided resection is the preferred initial treatment. Total and subtotal resections correlate with increased overall survival. High-risk patients (age >40, partial resection), especially IDH-mutated and 1p19q-codeleted oligodendroglial lesions, benefit from surgery plus adjuvant chemoradiation. Under the new 2016 WHO brain tumor classification, which now incorporates molecular parameters, all diffusely infiltrating gliomas are grouped together since they share specific genetic mutations and prognostic factors. Although low-grade gliomas cannot be regarded as benign tumors, large observational studies have shown that median survival can actually be doubled if an early, aggressive, multi-stage and personalized therapy is applied, as compared to prior wait-and-see policy series. Patients need an honest long-term therapeutic strategy that should ideally anticipate neurological, cognitive and histopathologic worsening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P D Delgado-López
- Servicio de Neurocirugía, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Avda Islas Baleares 3, 09006, Burgos, Spain.
| | - E M Corrales-García
- Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
| | - J Martino
- Servicio de Neurocirugía, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain
| | - E Lastra-Aras
- Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
| | - M T Dueñas-Polo
- Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
158
|
Back M, LeMottee M, Crasta C, Bailey D, Wheeler H, Guo L, Eade T. Reducing radiation dose to normal brain through a risk adapted dose reduction protocol for patients with favourable subtype anaplastic glioma. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:46. [PMID: 28253929 PMCID: PMC5335728 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0782-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2016] [Accepted: 02/10/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM In patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutated anaplastic glioma determine the dosimetric benefits of delivering radiation therapy using a PET guided integrated boost IMRT technique (ib-IMRT) compared with standard IMRT (s-IMRT) in reducing dose to normal brain. METHODS Ten patients with anaplastic glioma, identified as a favourable molecular subgroup through presence of IDH mutation, and managed with radiation therapy using an ib-IMRT were enrolled into a dosimetric study comparing two RT techniques: s-IMRT to 59.4Gy or ib-IMRT with 59.4/54Gy regions. Gross Tumour volume (GTV) and Clinical Target Volumes (CTV) were determined by MRI, 18F-Fluoroethyltyrosine (FET) and 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET imaging. A standard risk Planning Target Volume (PTVsr) receiving 59.4Gy (PTV59.4) in the s-IMRT technique was determined by MRI T2Flair and FET PET. For the ib-IMRT technique this PTVsr volume was treated to 54Gy, and the high-risk PTV (PTVhr) receiving 59.4Gy was determined as a higher risk region by FDG PET and MRI gadolinium enhancement. Standard dosimetric criteria and normal tissue constraints based on recent clinical trials were used in target delineation and planning. Normal Brain was defined as Brain minus CTV. Endpoints for dosimetric evaluation related to mean Brain dose (mBrainDose), brain volume receiving 40Gy (Brainv40) and 20Gy (Brainv20). The variation between the dosimetric endpoints for both techniques was examined using Wilcoxon analysis. RESULTS The 10 patients had tumours located in temporal (1), parietal (3), occipital (2) and bifrontal (4) regions. In ib-IMRT technique the median volume of PTVhr was 25.5 cm3 compared with PTVsr of 300.0 cm3. For dose to PTVhr the two treatments were equivalent (p = 0.33), and although the ibIMRT had a prescribed 10% dose reduction from 59.4Gy to 54Gy the median reduction was only 5.9%. The ib-IMRT dosimetry was significantly improved in normal brain endpoints specifically mBrainDose (p = 0.007), Brainv40 (p = 0.005) and Brainv20 (p = 0.001), with a median reduction of 9.3%, 19.0 and 10.8% respectively. After a median follow-up of 38 months two patients have progressed, with no isolated relapse in the dose reduction region. CONCLUSION An approach using ib-IMRT for anaplastic glioma produces significant dosimetric advantages in relation to normal brain dose compared with s-IMRT plan. This is achieved without a significant reduction to the target volume dose despite the reduction in prescribed dose. This technique has advantages to minimise potential late neurocognitive effects from high dose radiation in patients with favorable subtype anaplastic glioma with predicted median survival beyond ten years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Back
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. .,Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, NSW, Australia. .,Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. .,Sydney Neuro-Oncology Group, Sydney, NSW, Australia. .,Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, 2065, Australia.
| | - M LeMottee
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, NSW, Australia
| | - C Crasta
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - D Bailey
- Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, NSW, Australia.,Department of PET and Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - H Wheeler
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.,Sydney Neuro-Oncology Group, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - L Guo
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - T Eade
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, NSW, Australia.,Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
159
|
Wang K, Zanation AM, Chera BS. The Role of Radiation Therapy in the Management of Sinonasal and Ventral Skull Base Malignancies. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2017; 50:419-432. [PMID: 28104274 DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2016.12.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Sinonasal and ventral skull base malignancies are rare tumors that arise in a complex anatomic location juxtaposed with critically important normal tissues. The standard treatment paradigm for most histologies has been surgery followed by postoperative radiation therapy. Because of their propensity to present at an advanced stage and the presence of nearby critical structures, patients are at risk for severe radiation-induced long-term toxicity. Recent advances in radiotherapy technique have improved the therapeutic ratio between tumor control and normal tissue toxicity. This article reviews issues pertinent to the use of radiotherapy in the management of these tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyle Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, 101 Manning Drive, CB #7512, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7512, USA
| | - Adam M Zanation
- Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, 170 Manning Drive, CB #7070, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7070, USA
| | - Bhishamjit S Chera
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, 101 Manning Drive, CB #7512, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7512, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
160
|
Chang SM, Cahill DP, Aldape KD, Mehta MP. Treatment of Adult Lower-Grade Glioma in the Era of Genomic Medicine. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2017; 35:75-81. [PMID: 27249688 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_158869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
By convention, gliomas are histopathologically classified into four grades by the World Health Organization (WHO) legacy criteria, in which increasing grade is associated with worse prognosis and grades also are subtyped by presumed cell of origin. This classification has prognostic value but is limited by wide variability of outcome within each grade, so the classification is rapidly undergoing dramatic re-evaluation in the context of a superior understanding of the biologic heterogeneity and molecular make-up of these tumors, such that we now recognize that some low-grade gliomas behave almost like malignant glioblastoma, whereas other anaplastic gliomas have outcomes comparable to favorable low-grade gliomas. This clinical spectrum is partly accounted for by the dispersion of several molecular genetic alterations inherent to clinical tumor behavior. These molecular biomarkers have become important not only as prognostic factors but also, more critically, as predictive markers to drive therapeutic decision making. Some of these, in the near future, will likely also serve as potential therapeutic targets. In this article, we summarize the key molecular features of clinical significance for WHO grades II and III gliomas and underscore how the therapeutic landscape is changing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan M Chang
- From the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Toronto General Hospital/Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
| | - Daniel P Cahill
- From the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Toronto General Hospital/Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
| | - Kenneth D Aldape
- From the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Toronto General Hospital/Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
| | - Minesh P Mehta
- From the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Toronto General Hospital/Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
161
|
|
162
|
Reijneveld JC, Taphoorn MJB, Coens C, Bromberg JEC, Mason WP, Hoang-Xuan K, Ryan G, Hassel MB, Enting RH, Brandes AA, Wick A, Chinot O, Reni M, Kantor G, Thiessen B, Klein M, Verger E, Borchers C, Hau P, Back M, Smits A, Golfinopoulos V, Gorlia T, Bottomley A, Stupp R, Baumert BG. Health-related quality of life in patients with high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:1533-1542. [PMID: 27686943 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30305-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2016] [Revised: 06/28/2016] [Accepted: 07/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with a high-risk low-grade glioma has been shown to have no significant effect on progression-free survival. If these treatments have a different effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), it might affect the choice of therapy. We postulated that temozolomide compromises HRQOL and global cognitive functioning to a lesser extent than does radiotherapy. METHODS We did a prospective, phase 3, randomised controlled trial at 78 medical centres and large hospitals in 19 countries. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed diffuse (WHO grade II) astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, or mixed oligoastrocytoma, with a WHO performance status of 2 or lower, without previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy, who needed active treatment other than surgery. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) using a minimisation technique, stratified by WHO performance status (0-1 vs 2), age (<40 years vs ≥40 years), presence of contrast enhancement on MRI, chromosome 1p status (deleted vs non-deleted vs indeterminate), and the treating medical centre, to receive either radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1·8 Gy for 5 days per week up to 6·5 weeks) or temozolomide chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 daily, for 21 of 28 days [one cycle] for 12 cycles). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (results published separately); here, we report the results for two key secondary endpoints: HRQOL (assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's [EORTC] QLQ-C30 [version 3] and the EORTC Brain Cancer Module [QLQ-BN20]) and global cognitive functioning (assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]). We did analyses on the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed and is registered at EudraCT, number 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00182819. FINDINGS Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 eligible patients to either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). The difference in HRQOL between the two treatment groups was not significant during the 36 months' follow-up (mean between group difference [averaged over all timepoints] 0·06, 95% CI -4·64 to 4·75, p=0·98). At baseline, 32 (13%) of 239 patients who received radiotherapy and 32 (14%) of 236 patients who received temozolomide chemotherapy had impaired cognitive function, according to the MMSE scores. After randomisation, five (8%) of 63 patients who received radiotherapy and three (6%) of 54 patients who received temozolomide chemotherapy and who could be followed up for 36 months had impaired cognitive function, according to the MMSE scores. No significant difference was recorded between the groups for the change in MMSE scores during the 36 months of follow-up. INTERPRETATION The effect of temozolomide chemotherapy or radiotherapy on HRQOL or global cognitive functioning did not differ in patients with low-grade glioma. These results do not support the choice of temozolomide alone over radiotherapy alone in patients with high-risk low-grade glioma. FUNDING Merck Sharp & Dohme-Merck & Co, National Cancer Institute, Swiss Cancer League, National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, National Health and Medical Research Council, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaap C Reijneveld
- Department of Neurology, Brain Tumor Centre Amsterdam, VU University Medical Centre and Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| | - Martin J B Taphoorn
- Department of Neurology, Medical Centre Haaglanden and Leiden University Medical Centre, The Hague, Netherlands
| | - Corneel Coens
- Department of Quality of Life, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jacoline E C Bromberg
- Department of Neuro-oncology, Erasmus MC University MC Cancer Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Warren P Mason
- Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Khê Hoang-Xuan
- APHP, Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, UPMC, Sorbonne Universités, IHU, Paris, France
| | - Gail Ryan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Mohamed Ben Hassel
- Department of Medical Oncology and Department of Radiotherapy, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France
| | - Roelien H Enting
- Department of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Alba A Brandes
- Department of Medical Oncology, AUSL-IRCCS Scienze Neurologiche, Bologna, Italy
| | - Antje Wick
- Neurology Clinic, University of Heidelberg Medical Centre and NCT Neurooncology in DKTK of the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Olivier Chinot
- Aix Marseille Universite, APHM, Hopital de La Timone, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Marseille, France
| | - Michele Reni
- IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Guy Kantor
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; Department of Radiotherapy, University Bordeaux Segalen, Bordeaux, France
| | | | - Martin Klein
- Department of Medical Psychology, Brain Tumor Centre Amsterdam, VU University Medical Centre and Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eugenie Verger
- Department of Radiation-Oncology, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Christian Borchers
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Centre of Neuromedicine, North-West-Hospital Sanderbusch, Sande, Germany
| | - Peter Hau
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Michael Back
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
| | - Anja Smits
- Department of Neuroscience, Neurology, Uppsala University and University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Vassilis Golfinopoulos
- Medical Department, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Thierry Gorlia
- Department of Statistics, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Andrew Bottomley
- Department of Quality of Life, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Roger Stupp
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Department of Neurosurgery, and Department of Oncology, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Brigitta G Baumert
- Department of Medical Oncology and Cancer Centre, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation-Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC) and GROW (School for Oncology), Maastricht, Netherlands; Department of Radiation-Oncology, MediClin Robert-Janker-Clinic, Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuro-oncology, University Bonn Medical Centre, Bonn, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
163
|
Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:1521-1532. [PMID: 27686946 PMCID: PMC5124485 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30313-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 316] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2016] [Revised: 07/05/2016] [Accepted: 07/11/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Outcome of low-grade glioma (WHO grade II) is highly variable, reflecting molecular heterogeneity of the disease. We compared two different, single-modality treatment strategies of standard radiotherapy versus primary temozolomide chemotherapy in patients with low-grade glioma, and assessed progression-free survival outcomes and identified predictive molecular factors. METHODS For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study (EORTC 22033-26033), undertaken in 78 clinical centres in 19 countries, we included patients aged 18 years or older who had a low-grade (WHO grade II) glioma (astrocytoma, oligoastrocytoma, or oligodendroglioma) with at least one high-risk feature (aged >40 years, progressive disease, tumour size >5 cm, tumour crossing the midline, or neurological symptoms), and without known HIV infection, chronic hepatitis B or C virus infection, or any condition that could interfere with oral drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either conformal radiotherapy (up to 50·4 Gy; 28 doses of 1·8 Gy once daily, 5 days per week for up to 6·5 weeks) or dose-dense oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 once daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days [one cycle], for a maximum of 12 cycles). Random treatment allocation was done online by a minimisation technique with prospective stratification by institution, 1p deletion (absent vs present vs undetermined), contrast enhancement (yes vs no), age (<40 vs ≥40 years), and WHO performance status (0 vs ≥1). Patients, treating physicians, and researchers were aware of the assigned intervention. A planned analysis was done after 216 progression events occurred. Our primary clinical endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat; secondary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, neurocognitive function (will be reported separately), health-related quality of life and neurological function (reported separately), and correlative analyses of progression-free survival by molecular markers (1p/19q co-deletion, MGMT promoter methylation status, and IDH1/IDH2 mutations). This trial is closed to accrual but continuing for follow-up, and is registered at the European Trials Registry, EudraCT 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00182819. FINDINGS Between Sept 23, 2005, and March 26, 2010, 707 patients were registered for the study. Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 patients to receive either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). At a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR 31-56), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 35-44) in the temozolomide group and 46 months (40-56) in the radiotherapy group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·9-1·5, p=0·22). Median overall survival has not been reached. Exploratory analyses in 318 molecularly-defined patients confirmed the significantly different prognosis for progression-free survival in the three recently defined molecular low-grade glioma subgroups (IDHmt, with or without 1p/19q co-deletion [IDHmt/codel], or IDH wild type [IDHwt]; p=0·013). Patients with IDHmt/non-codel tumours treated with radiotherapy had a longer progression-free survival than those treated with temozolomide (HR 1·86 [95% CI 1·21-2·87], log-rank p=0·0043), whereas there were no significant treatment-dependent differences in progression-free survival for patients with IDHmt/codel and IDHwt tumours. Grade 3-4 haematological adverse events occurred in 32 (14%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in one (<1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy, and grade 3-4 infections occurred in eight (3%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in two (1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in eight (3%) patients in the radiotherapy group (grade 2) and 16 (7%) in the temozolomide group. 119 (25%) of all 477 patients had died at database lock. Four patients died due to treatment-related causes: two in the temozolomide group and two in the radiotherapy group. INTERPRETATION Overall, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival in patients with low-grade glioma when treated with either radiotherapy alone or temozolomide chemotherapy alone. Further data maturation is needed for overall survival analyses and evaluation of the full predictive effects of different molecular subtypes for future individualised treatment choices. FUNDING Merck Sharpe & Dohme-Merck & Co, Canadian Cancer Society, Swiss Cancer League, UK National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, US National Cancer Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.
Collapse
|
164
|
Uppstrom TJ, Singh R, Hadjigeorgiou GF, Magge R, Ramakrishna R. Repeat surgery for recurrent low-grade gliomas should be standard of care. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2016; 151:18-23. [PMID: 27736650 DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.09.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2016] [Revised: 09/20/2016] [Accepted: 09/21/2016] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
The importance of surgery and maximal extent of resection (EOR) is well established in primary low-grade glioma (LGG) management. However, the role of surgery in the management of recurrent LGG is less clear. A recent review on the management of recurrent LGG concluded there was insufficient evidence to recommend surgery. Here, we summarize the recent advances regarding the role of surgery, radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy in the management of recurrent LGG. There is increasing evidence to support maximal EOR for treating recurrent LGG, as it may improve progression free survival (PFS) after recurrence and overall survival (OS). Based on the studies presented in this review, we suggest that repeat surgery with maximal EOR should be standard of care for recurrent LGG treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler J Uppstrom
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, United States.
| | - Ranjodh Singh
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, United States.
| | - Georgios F Hadjigeorgiou
- Department of Neurosurgery, Red Cross Hospital, Athanasaki 1 & Erithrou Stavrou, Athens, Greece.
| | - Rajiv Magge
- Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, United States.
| | - Rohan Ramakrishna
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
165
|
Gai XJ, Wei YM, Tao HM, An DZ, Sun JT, Li BS. Comparison of long-term survival between temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone for patients with low-grade gliomas after surgical resection. Onco Targets Ther 2016; 9:5117-21. [PMID: 27574452 PMCID: PMC4993403 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s108989] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose This study was designed to compare the survival outcomes of temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy (TMZ + RT) vs radiotherapy alone (RT-alone) for low-grade gliomas (LGGs) after surgical resection. Patients and methods In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed postoperative records of 69 patients with LGGs treated with TMZ + RT (n=31) and RT-alone (n=38) at the Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University between June 2011 and December 2013. Patients in the TMZ + RT group were administered 50–100 mg oral TMZ every day until the radiotherapy regimen was completed. Results The median follow-up since surgery was 33 months and showed no significant intergroup differences (P=0.06). There were statistically significant intergroup differences in the progression-free survival rate (P=0.037), with 83.9% for TMZ-RT group and 60.5% for RT-alone group. The overall 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 89.86%. Age distribution (≥45 years and <45 years) and resection margin (complete resection or not) were significantly associated with OS (P=0.03 and P=0.004, respectively). Conclusion Although no differences were found in the 2-year OS between the TMZ + RT and RT-alone groups, there was a trend toward increased 2-year progression-free survival in the TMZ + RT group. With better tolerability, concurrent TMZ chemoradiotherapy may be beneficial for postoperative patients with LGGs. Age distribution and surgical margin are likely potential indicators of disease prognosis. The possible differences in long-term survival between the two groups and the links between prognostic factors and long-term survival may be worthy of further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiu-Juan Gai
- School of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Jinan-Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China; Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China
| | - Yu-Mei Wei
- Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China
| | - Heng-Min Tao
- School of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Jinan-Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China; Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China
| | - Dian-Zheng An
- Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China
| | - Jia-Teng Sun
- School of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Jinan-Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China; Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China
| | - Bao-Sheng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology VI, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
166
|
Feuvret L, Antoni D, Biau J, Truc G, Noël G, Mazeron JJ. [Guidelines for the radiotherapy of gliomas]. Cancer Radiother 2016; 20 Suppl:S69-79. [PMID: 27521036 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2016.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Gliomas are the most frequent primary brain tumours. Treating these tumours is difficult because of the proximity of organs at risk, infiltrating nature, and radioresistance. Clinical prognostic factors such as age, Karnofsky performance status, tumour location, and treatments such as surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy have long been recognized in the management of patients with gliomas. Molecular biomarkers are increasingly evolving as additional factors that facilitate diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making. These practice guidelines aim at helping in choosing the best treatment, in particular radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Feuvret
- Service de radiothérapie, CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France.
| | - D Antoni
- Département universitaire de radiothérapie, centre Paul-Strauss, Unicancer, 3, rue de la Porte-de-l'Hôpital, 67065 Strasbourg, France
| | - J Biau
- Département universitaire de radiothérapie, centre Jean-Perrin, Unicancer, 58, rue Montalembert, BP 392, 63011 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 1, France
| | - G Truc
- Département universitaire de radiothérapie, centre Georges-François-Leclerc, Unicancer, 1, rue Professeur-Marion, BP 77980, 21079 Dijon cedex, France
| | - G Noël
- Département universitaire de radiothérapie, centre Paul-Strauss, Unicancer, 3, rue de la Porte-de-l'Hôpital, 67065 Strasbourg, France
| | - J-J Mazeron
- Service de radiothérapie, CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
167
|
|
168
|
Le Rhun E, Taillibert S, Chamberlain MC. Current Management of Adult Diffuse Infiltrative Low Grade Gliomas. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2016; 16:15. [PMID: 26750130 DOI: 10.1007/s11910-015-0615-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Diffuse infiltrative low grade gliomas (LGG) account for approximately 15 % of all gliomas. The prognosis of LGG differs between high-risk and low-risk patients notwithstanding varying definitions of what constitutes a high-risk patient. Maximal safe resection optimally is the initial treatment. Surgery that achieves a large volume resection improves both progression-free and overall survival. Based on results of three randomized clinical trials (RCT), radiotherapy (RT) may be deferred in patients with low-risk LGG (defined as age <40 years and having undergone a complete resection), although combined chemoradiotherapy has never been prospectively evaluated in the low-risk population. The recent RTOG 9802 RCT established a new standard of care in high-risk patients (defined as age >40 years or incomplete resection) by demonstrating a nearly twofold improvement in overall survival with the addition of PCV (procarbazine, CCNU, vincristine) chemotherapy following RT as compared to RT alone. Chemotherapy alone as a treatment of LGG may result in less toxicity than RT; however, this has only been prospectively studied once (EORTC 22033) in high-risk patients. A challenge remains to define when an aggressive treatment improves survival without impacting quality of life (QoL) or neurocognitive function and when an effective treatment can be delayed in order to preserve QoL without impacting survival. Current WHO histopathological classification is poorly predictive of outcome in patients with LGG. The integration of molecular biomarkers with histology will lead to an improved classification that more accurately reflects underlying tumor biology, prognosis, and hopefully best therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Le Rhun
- Neuro-oncology, Department of Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
- Breast unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Oscar Lambret Center, Lille, France.
- PRISM Inserm U1191, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
| | - Sophie Taillibert
- Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, UPMC-Paris VI University, Paris, France.
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, UPMC-Paris VI University, Paris, France.
| | - Marc C Chamberlain
- Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology and Neurological Surgery, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, 825 Eastlake Ave E, MS G4940, PO Box 19023, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
169
|
Hervey-Jumper SL, Berger MS. Maximizing safe resection of low- and high-grade glioma. J Neurooncol 2016; 130:269-282. [PMID: 27174197 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-016-2110-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 304] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2016] [Accepted: 03/23/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
170
|
Zhuang DX, Wu JS, Yao CJ, Qiu TM, Lu JF, Zhu FP, Xu G, Zhu W, Zhou LF. Intraoperative Multi-Information-Guided Resection of Dominant-Sided Insular Gliomas in a 3-T Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Integrated Neurosurgical Suite. World Neurosurg 2016; 89:84-92. [DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.01.067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2015] [Revised: 01/12/2016] [Accepted: 01/13/2016] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
171
|
Narang AK, Chaichana KL, Weingart JD, Redmond KJ, Lim M, Olivi A, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Kleinberg LR. Progressive Low-Grade Glioma: Assessment of Prognostic Importance of Histologic Reassessment and MRI Findings. World Neurosurg 2016; 99:751-757. [PMID: 27108796 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2015] [Revised: 04/07/2016] [Accepted: 04/08/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In patients with progressive low-grade glioma (LGG), the presence of new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enhancement is commonly used as an indicator of malignant degeneration, but its accuracy in this setting is uncertain. OBJECTIVE We characterize the ability of new MRI enhancement to serve as a surrogate for histologic grade in patients with progressive LGG, and to explore the prognostic value of new MRI enhancement, pathologic grade, and extent of resection. METHODS Patients at our institution with World Health Organization grade II glioma diagnosed between 1994 and 2010 and who underwent repeat biopsy or resection at progression were retrospectively reviewed (n = 108). The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity of new MRI enhancement were characterized. A multivariable proportional hazards model was used to test associations with overall survival (OS), and Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare OS between patient subsets. RESULTS The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity of new MRI enhancement were 82%, 77%, 92%, and 57%, respectively. In patients without malignant degeneration, new MRI enhancement was associated with inferior median OS (92.5 months vs. not reached; P = 0.03). In patients with malignant degeneration, gross or near total resection was associated with improved median OS (58.8 vs. 28.8 months; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION In patients with progressive LGG, new MRI enhancement and pathologic grade were discordant in greater than 20% of cases. Pathologic confirmation of grade should therefore be attempted, when safe, to dictate management. Beyond functioning as a surrogate for pathologic grade, new MRI enhancement may predict for worse outcomes, a concept that merits prospective investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amol K Narang
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kaisorn L Chaichana
- Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Jon D Weingart
- Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kristin J Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Michael Lim
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Alessandro Olivi
- Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Alfred Quinones-Hinojosa
- Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Lawrence R Kleinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
172
|
Taplin AM, de Pesters A, Brunner P, Hermes D, Dalfino JC, Adamo MA, Ritaccio AL, Schalk G. Intraoperative mapping of expressive language cortex using passive real-time electrocorticography. EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR CASE REPORTS 2016; 5:46-51. [PMID: 27408802 PMCID: PMC4922734 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebcr.2016.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2016] [Revised: 03/01/2016] [Accepted: 03/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
In this case report, we investigated the utility and practicality of passive intraoperative functional mapping of expressive language cortex using high-resolution electrocorticography (ECoG). The patient presented here experienced new-onset seizures caused by a medium-grade tumor in very close proximity to expressive language regions. In preparation of tumor resection, the patient underwent multiple functional language mapping procedures. We examined the relationship of results obtained with intraoperative high-resolution ECoG, extraoperative ECoG utilizing a conventional subdural grid, extraoperative electrical cortical stimulation (ECS) mapping, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Our results demonstrate that intraoperative mapping using high-resolution ECoG is feasible and, within minutes, produces results that are qualitatively concordant to those achieved by extraoperative mapping modalities. They also suggest that functional language mapping of expressive language areas with ECoG may prove useful in many intraoperative conditions given its time efficiency and safety. Finally, they demonstrate that integration of results from multiple functional mapping techniques, both intraoperative and extraoperative, may serve to improve the confidence in or precision of functional localization when pathology encroaches upon eloquent language cortex.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- AmiLyn M Taplin
- Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Adriana de Pesters
- National Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA; Department of Biomedical Sciences, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Peter Brunner
- National Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA; Department of Neurology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Dora Hermes
- Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - John C Dalfino
- Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Matthew A Adamo
- Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA
| | | | - Gerwin Schalk
- National Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA; Department of Biomedical Sciences, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY, USA; Department of Neurology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
173
|
Jiang T, Mao Y, Ma W, Mao Q, You Y, Yang X, Jiang C, Kang C, Li X, Chen L, Qiu X, Wang W, Li W, Yao Y, Li S, Li S, Wu A, Sai K, Bai H, Li G, Chen B, Yao K, Wei X, Liu X, Zhang Z, Dai Y, Lv S, Wang L, Lin Z, Dong J, Xu G, Ma X, Cai J, Zhang W, Wang H, Chen L, Zhang C, Yang P, Yan W, Liu Z, Hu H, Chen J, Liu Y, Yang Y, Wang Z, Wang Z, Wang Y, You G, Han L, Bao Z, Liu Y, Wang Y, Fan X, Liu S, Liu X, Wang Y, Wang Q. CGCG clinical practice guidelines for the management of adult diffuse gliomas. Cancer Lett 2016; 375:263-273. [PMID: 26966000 DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.01.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 304] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2015] [Revised: 01/15/2016] [Accepted: 01/15/2016] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
The Chinese Glioma Cooperative Group (CGCG) Guideline Panel for adult diffuse gliomas provided recommendations for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The Panel covered all fields of expertise in neuro-oncology, i.e. neurosurgeons, neurologists, neuropathologists, neuroradiologists, radiation and medical oncologists and clinical trial experts. The task made clearer and more transparent choices about outcomes considered most relevant through searching the references considered most relevant and evaluating their value. The scientific evidence of papers collected from the literature was evaluated and graded based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence and recommendations were given accordingly. The recommendations will provide a framework and assurance for the strategy of diagnostic and therapeutic measures to reduce complications from unnecessary treatment and cost. The guideline should serve as an application for all professionals involved in the management of patients with adult diffuse glioma and also as a source of knowledge for insurance companies and other institutions involved in the cost regulation of cancer care in China.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tao Jiang
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China; Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China; Center of Brain Tumor, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing 100069, China; China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing 100050, China.
| | - Ying Mao
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
| | - Wenbin Ma
- Department of Neurosurgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
| | - Qing Mao
- Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
| | - Yongping You
- Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
| | - Xuejun Yang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Key Laboratory of Post-trauma Neuro-repair and Regeneration in Central Nervous System, Ministry of Education, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin 300052, China.
| | - Chuanlu Jiang
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150086, China
| | - Chunsheng Kang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Key Laboratory of Post-trauma Neuro-repair and Regeneration in Central Nervous System, Ministry of Education, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Xuejun Li
- Department of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China
| | - Ling Chen
- Department of Neurosurgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Xiaoguang Qiu
- Department of Radiotherapy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Weimin Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Guangzhou General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510010, China
| | - Wenbin Li
- Department of Oncology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100038, China
| | - Yu Yao
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China
| | - Shaowu Li
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Shouwei Li
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100093, China
| | - Anhua Wu
- Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China
| | - Ke Sai
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China
| | - Hongmin Bai
- Department of Neurosurgery, Guangzhou General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510010, China
| | - Guilin Li
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Baoshi Chen
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Kun Yao
- Department of Pathology, Beijing Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100093, China
| | - Xinting Wei
- Department of Neurosurgery, The 1st Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China
| | - Xianzhi Liu
- Department of Neurosurgery, The 1st Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China
| | - Zhiwen Zhang
- Department of Neurosurgery, The First Hospital Affiliated to the Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100048, China
| | - Yiwu Dai
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Military Region General Hospital, Beijing 100700, China
| | - Shengqing Lv
- Department of Neurosurgery, Xinqiao Hospital, The Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China
| | - Liang Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710038, China
| | - Zhixiong Lin
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100093, China
| | - Jun Dong
- Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China
| | - Guozheng Xu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Guangzhou, Wuhan 430070, China
| | - Xiaodong Ma
- Department of Neurosurgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
| | - Jinquan Cai
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150086, China
| | - Wei Zhang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Hongjun Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150086, China
| | - Lingchao Chen
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China
| | | | - Pei Yang
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Wei Yan
- Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Zhixiong Liu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China
| | - Huimin Hu
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Jing Chen
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Yuqing Liu
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Yuan Yang
- Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
| | - Zheng Wang
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Zhiliang Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Yongzhi Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Gan You
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Lei Han
- Department of Neurosurgery, Key Laboratory of Post-trauma Neuro-repair and Regeneration in Central Nervous System, Ministry of Education, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin 300052, China
| | - Zhaoshi Bao
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Yanwei Liu
- Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Yinyan Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Xing Fan
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Shuai Liu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
| | - Xing Liu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China
| | - Yu Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
| | - Qixue Wang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Key Laboratory of Post-trauma Neuro-repair and Regeneration in Central Nervous System, Ministry of Education, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin 300052, China
| | | |
Collapse
|
174
|
Impact of Resecting Radiation Necrosis and Pseudoprogression on Survival of Patients with Glioblastoma. World Neurosurg 2016; 89:37-41. [PMID: 26805684 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.01.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2015] [Revised: 01/05/2016] [Accepted: 01/06/2016] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Radiation necrosis (RN) and pseudoprogression are known as postradiation treatment effects and may simulate tumor progression. The disease course of glioblastoma patients who had developed RN and the impact of resecting RN on survival have not been evaluated. This study examines the clinical course of patients considered candidates for repeat surgery for a recurring brain mass proven to be RN and compared these with patients who had true tumor recurrence at surgery. METHODS Of 159 patients with glioblastoma who were reoperated on because of a presumed recurrent tumor requiring repeat surgery, 18 had RN as the major component of the resected mass. The characteristics and outcome of these 18 patients were retrospectively analyzed and compared with patients in whom active and bulky tumor was found during surgery. RESULTS Radiation necrosis occurred significantly earlier than true tumor recurrence. Patients with RN harbored larger lesions and were significantly more symptomatic before the second surgery. Most patients with RN who underwent GTR of the lesion in the second operation experienced faster resolution of the surrounding edema compared with patients who underwent STR or biopsy only. There was no significant difference in survival between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS These data provide an opportunity to examine the clinical course of a selected group of patients with histologically verified RN. Although RN is associated with more severe neurologic symptoms that improve after surgery, its occurrence or surgical removal carries no survival advantage compared with patients who undergo a repeat operation for true tumor recurrence.
Collapse
|
175
|
Berger MS, Hervey-Jumper S, Wick W. Astrocytic gliomas WHO grades II and III. HANDBOOK OF CLINICAL NEUROLOGY 2016; 134:345-60. [PMID: 26948365 DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-802997-8.00021-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
World Health Organization grades II and III lower-grade astrocytomas are a challenging area in neuro-oncology. One the one hand, for proper diagnosis, the analysis of molecular factors, especially mutation status of isocitrate dehydrogenase and 1p/19q status in the tumor status needs to be done in addition to classical neuropathology. Further, the high clinical and prognostic value of a maximal safe resection requires a profound knowledge of presurgical diagnosis and surgical as well as imaging techniques to ensure optimal outcome for patients. Also medical treatment may be more intensive than previously believed, with randomized trials providing evidence for a benefit in overall survival by combined chemoradiation versus radiation alone. A critical problem concerns the considerable undesirable effects of therapeutic interventions on long-term health-related quality of life, cognitive and functional outcome as well as future developments in this still difficult disease that will need to be addressed in future trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitchel S Berger
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| | - Shawn Hervey-Jumper
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Taubman Health Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Wolfgang Wick
- Department of Neurooncology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
176
|
Van Den Bent MJ, Bromberg JEC, Buckner J. Low-grade and anaplastic oligodendroglioma. HANDBOOK OF CLINICAL NEUROLOGY 2016; 134:361-80. [PMID: 26948366 DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-802997-8.00022-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Anaplastic oligodendrogliomas have long attracted interest because of their sensitivity to chemotherapy, in particular in the subset of 1p/19q co-deleted tumors. Recent molecular studies have shown that all 1p/19q co-deleted tumors have IDH mutations and most of them also have TERT mutations. Because of the presence of similar typical genetic alterations in astrocytoma and glioblastoma, the current trend is to diagnose these tumors on the basis of their molecular profile. Further long-term follow-up analysis of both EORTC and RTOG randomized studies on (neo)adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy have shown that adjuvant chemotherapy indeed improves outcome, and this is now standard of care. It is also equally clear that benefit to PCV chemotherapy is not limited to the 1p/19q co-deleted cases; potential other predictive factors are IDH mutations and MGMT promoter methylation. Moreover, a recent RTOG study on low-grade glioma also noted an improved outcome after adjuvant PCV chemotherapy, thus making (PCV) chemotherapy now standard of care for all 1p/19q co-deleted tumors regardless of grade. It remains unclear whether temozolomide provides the same survival benefit, as no data from well-designed clinical trials on adjuvant temozolomide in this tumor type are available. Another question that remains is whether one can safely leave out radiotherapy as part of initial treatment to avoid cognitive side-effects of radiotherapy. The current data suggest that delaying radiotherapy and treatment with chemotherapy only may be detrimental for overall survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin J Van Den Bent
- Neuro-Oncology Unit, The Brain Tumor Center at Erasmus MC Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Jacolien E C Bromberg
- Neuro-Oncology Unit, The Brain Tumor Center at Erasmus MC Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Buckner
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
177
|
Abstract
Neurosurgical intervention remains the first step in effective glioma management. Mounting evidence suggests that cytoreduction for low- and high-grade gliomas is associated with a survival benefit. Beyond conventional neurosurgical principles, an array of techniques have been refined in recent years to maximize the effect of the neurosurgical oncologist and facilitate the impact of subsequent adjuvant therapy. With intraoperative mapping techniques, aggressive microsurgical resection can be safely pursued even when tumors occupy essential functional pathways. Other adjunct techniques, such as intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging, intraoperative ultrasonography, and fluorescence-guided surgery, can be valuable tools to safely reduce the tumor burden of low- and high-grade gliomas. Taken together, this collection of surgical strategies has pushed glioma extent of resection towards the level of cellular resolution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Colin Watts
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - Nader Sanai
- Barrow Brain Tumor Research Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
178
|
Abstract
Although resection remains the mainstay in the treatment of gliomas, microscopically complete resection of most central nervous system tumors remains challenging, and is, in fact, rarely accomplished. Considering their invasive nature, gross total resections to clearly negative margins often do or would require removal or transection of functional brain, with likely serious neurologic deficits. Consequently, radiotherapy has emerged as an indispensable component of therapy. It is delivered primarily by external-beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy techniques. Herein, we present the biologic principles, techniques, and applications of radiotherapy in glioma treatment today.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James W Snider
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Minesh Mehta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
179
|
Abstract
Radiotherapy (RT) of the brain is associated with significant stigma in the neuro-oncology community. This is primarily because of the potentially severe complications with which it may be associated. These complications, especially in subacute and latent settings, are often unpredictable, potentially progressive, and irreversible. The onset of complications may start from the first fraction of 2 Gy, continuing over several months after end of RT with persistent drowsiness and apathy. It may also extend over many years with progressive onset of neurocognitive impairments such as memory decline, and diminished focus/attention. For long-term survivors, such as young patients irradiated for a favorable low-grade glioma, quality of life can be seriously impacted by RT. It is essential, as in the pediatric field, to propose patient-specific regimens from the very outset of therapy. The use of molecular biomarkers to better predict survival, control of comorbidities along with judicious use of medications such as steroids and antiepileptics, improved targeting with the help of modern imaging and RT techniques, modulation of the dose, and fractionation aimed at limiting integral dose to the healthy brain all have the potential to minimize treatment-related complications while maintaining the therapeutic efficacy for which RT is known. Sparing "radiosensitive" areas such as hippocampi could have a modest but measurable impact with regard to cognitive preservation, an effect that can possibly be enhanced when used in conjunction with memantine and/or donepezil.
Collapse
|
180
|
Sanai N, Berger MS. Techniques in the Resection of Gliomas. Neurooncol Pract 2015. [DOI: 10.1093/nop/npv048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
181
|
Brown PD, Anderson SK, Carrero XW, O'Neill BP, Giannini C, Galanis E, Shah SA, Abrams RA, Curran WJ, Buckner JC, Shaw EG. Adult patients with supratentorial pilocytic astrocytoma: long-term follow-up of prospective multicenter clinical trial NCCTG-867251 (Alliance). Neurooncol Pract 2015; 2:199-204. [PMID: 26640699 PMCID: PMC4669035 DOI: 10.1093/nop/npv031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2015] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pilocytic astrocytoma is a rare tumor in adults. This report is of a prospective clinical trial with long-term follow-up. METHODS Between 1986 and 1994, 20 eligible adults with supratentorial pilocytic astrocytomas were enrolled in a prospective intergroup trial of radiotherapy (RT) after biopsy (3 patients) or observation after gross (11 patients) or subtotal (6 patients) resection. RESULTS At the time of analysis (median follow-up, 20.8 years), 2 patients (10%) have died and 18 patients (90%) are alive. Neurologic and cognitive function were stable or improved over time for the majority of patients. No toxic effects of treatment or malignant transformations have been recorded at last follow-up. For the entire cohort the 20-year time to progression and overall survival rates are 95% and 90% respectively. The cause of death (2.2 and 16.1 years after enrollment) in both patients was unrelated to tumor although both were biopsy-only patients. One subtotally resected tumor progressed 1 month after enrollment requiring P32 injection into an enlarging cyst. Because of further progression this patient required RT 18 months later. This patient is alive without evidence of progression 18 years after RT. CONCLUSION The long-term follow-up results of this prospective trial confirm that adults with pilocytic astrocytomas have a favorable prognosis with regard to survival and neurologic function. Close observation is recommended for adults with pilocytic astrocytomas, reserving RT for salvage, as the majority remain stable after gross or subtotal resection and no adjuvant therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul D. Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - S. Keith Anderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Xiomara W. Carrero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Brian P. O'Neill
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Caterina Giannini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Eva Galanis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Sunjay A. Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Ross A. Abrams
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Walter J. Curran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Jan C. Buckner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| | - Edward G. Shaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 97, Houston, TX 77030 (P.D.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (P.D.B.); Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (S.K.A., X.W.C); Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (B.P.O.); Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (C.G.); Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 SW 1st St, Rochester, MN 55905 (E.G., J.C.B.); Delaware/Christiana Care CCOP, 4701 Ogletown-Stanton Rd Ste 1109, Newark, DE 19713 (S.A.S.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St Atrium Bldg Ground Floor, Chicago, IL 60612 (R.A.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1365 Clifton Rd NE Ste A-1358, Atlanta, GA 30322 (W.J.C.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University Medical Center, 2000 W. First St. Ste 101, Winston-Salem, NC 27104 (E.G.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
182
|
Ryken TC, Parney I, Buatti J, Kalkanis SN, Olson JJ. The role of radiotherapy in the management of patients with diffuse low grade glioma: A systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol 2015; 125:551-83. [PMID: 26530266 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-015-1948-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2015] [Accepted: 10/04/2015] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
QUESTIONS (1) What is the optimal role of external beam radiotherapy in the management of adult patients with newly diagnosed low-grade glioma (LGG) in terms of improving outcome (i.e., survival, complications, seizure control or other reported outcomes of interest)? (2) Which radiation strategies (dose, timing, fractionation, stereotactic radiation, brachytherapy, chemotherapy) improve outcomes compared to standard external beam radiation therapy in the initial management of low grade gliomas in adults? (3) Do specific factors (e.g., age, volume, extent of resection, genetic subtype) identify subgroups with better outcomes following radiation therapy than the general population of adults with newly diagnosed low-grade gliomas? TARGET POPULATION These recommendations apply to adults with newly diagnosed diffuse LGG. RECOMMENDATIONS OUTCOMES IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED LOW GRADE GLIOMA TREATED WITH RADIOTHERAPY: Level I Radiotherapy is recommended in the management of newly diagnosed low-grade glioma in adults to prolong progression free survival, irrespective of extent of resection. Level II Radiotherapy is recommended in the management of newly diagnosed low grade glioma in adults as an equivalent alternative to observation in preserving cognitive function, irrespective of extent of resection. Level III Radiotherapy is recommended in the management of newly diagnosed low grade glioma in adults to improve seizure control in patients with epilepsy and subtotal resection. Level III Radiotherapy is recommended in the management of newly diagnosed low-grade glioma in adults to prolong overall survival in patients with subtotal resection. Level III Consideration of the risk of radiation induced morbidity, including cognitive decline, imaging abnormalities, metabolic dysfunction and malignant transformation, is recommended when the delivery of radiotherapy is selected in the management of newly diagnosed low-grade glioma in adults. STRATEGIES OF RADIOTHERAPY IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED LOW GRADE GLIOMA: Level I Lower dose radiotherapy is recommended as an equivalent alternative to higher dose immediate postoperative radiotherapy (45-50.4 vs. 59.4-64.8 Gy) in the management of newly diagnosed low-grade glioma in adults with reduced toxicity. Level III Delaying radiotherapy until recurrence or progression is recommended as an equivalent alternative to immediate postoperative radiotherapy in the management of newly diagnosed low-grade glioma in adults but may result in shorter time to progression. Level III The addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy is not recommended over whole brain radiotherapy alone in the management of low-grade glioma, as it provides no additional survival benefit. Level III Limited-field radiotherapy is recommended over whole brain radiotherapy in the management of low-grade glioma. Level III Either stereotactic radiosurgery or brachytherapy are recommended as acceptable alternatives to external radiotherapy in selected patients. PROGNOSTIC FACTORS IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED LOW GRADE GLIOMA TREATED WITH RADIOTHERAPY: Level II It is recommended that age greater than 40 years, astrocytic pathology, diameter greater than 6 cm, tumor crossing the midline and preoperative neurological deficit be considered as negative prognostic indicators when predicting overall survival in adult low grade glioma patients treated with radiotherapy. Level II It is recommended that smaller tumor size, extent of surgical resection and higher mini-mental status exam be considered as positive prognostic indicators when predicting overall survival and progression free survival in patients in adult low grade glioma patients treated with radiotherapy. Level III It is recommended that seizures at presentation, presence of oligodendroglial histological component and 1p19q deletion (along with additional relevant factors-see Table 1) be considered as positive prognostic indicators when predicting response to radiotherapy in adults with low grade gliomas. Level III It is recommended that increasing age, decreasing performance status, decreasing cognition, presence of astrocytic histological component (along with additional relevant factors (see Tables 1, 2) be considered as negative prognostic indicators when predicting response to radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy C Ryken
- Department of Neurosurgery, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
| | - Ian Parney
- Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - John Buatti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Steven N Kalkanis
- Department of Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Jeffrey J Olson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
183
|
Aghi MK, Nahed BV, Sloan AE, Ryken TC, Kalkanis SN, Olson JJ. The role of surgery in the management of patients with diffuse low grade glioma: A systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol 2015; 125:503-30. [PMID: 26530265 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-015-1867-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 118] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2015] [Accepted: 07/27/2015] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
QUESTION Should patients with imaging suggestive of low grade glioma (LGG) undergo observation versus treatment involving a surgical procedure? TARGET POPULATION These recommendations apply to adults with imaging suggestive of a WHO grade 2 glioma (oligodendroglioma, astrocytoma, or oligo-astrocytoma). RECOMMENDATIONS Surgical resection is recommended over observation to improve overall survival for patients with diffuse low-grade glioma (Level III) although observation has no negative impact on cognitive performance and quality of life (Level II). QUESTION What is the impact of extent of resection on progression free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in LGG patients? TARGET POPULATION These recommendations apply to adults with imaging suggestive of a WHO grade 2 glioma (oligodendroglioma, astrocytoma, or oligo-astrocytoma). RECOMMENDATIONS IMPACT OF EXTENT OF RESECTION ON PFS: LEVEL II It is recommended that GTR or STR be accomplished instead of biopsy alone when safe and feasible so as to decrease the frequency of tumor progression recognizing that the rate of progression after GTR is fairly high. IMPACT OF EXTENT OF RESECTION ON OS LEVEL III Greater extent of resection can improve OS in LGG patients. QUESTION What tools are available to increase extent of resection in LGG patients? TARGET POPULATION These recommendations apply to adults with imaging suggestive of a WHO grade 2 glioma (oligodendroglioma, astrocytoma, or oligo-astrocytoma). RECOMMENDATIONS INTRAOPERATIVE MRI DURING SURGERY: LEVEL III The use of intraoperative MRI should be considered as a method of increasing the extent of resection of LGGs. QUESTION What is the impact of surgical resection on seizure control and accuracy of pathology in low grade glioma patients? TARGET POPULATION These recommendations apply to adults with imaging suggestive of a WHO grade 2 glioma (oligodendroglioma, astrocytoma, or oligo-astrocytoma). RECOMMENDATIONS SURGICAL RESECTION AND SEIZURE CONTROL: LEVEL III After taking into account the patient's clinical status and tumor location, gross total resection is recommended for patients with diffuse LGG as a way to achieve more favorable seizure control. ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSIS LEVEL III Taking into account the patient's clinical status and tumor location, surgical resection should be carried out to maximize the chance of accurate diagnosis. QUESTION What tools can improve the safety of surgery for LGGs in eloquent locations? TARGET POPULATION These recommendations apply to adults with imaging suggestive of a WHO grade 2 glioma (oligodendroglioma, astrocytoma, or oligo-astrocytoma). RECOMMENDATIONS PREOPERATIVE IMAGING: LEVEL III It is recommended that preoperative functional MRI and diffusion tensor imaging be utilized in the appropriate clinical setting to improve functional outcome after surgery for LGG. INTRAOPERATIVE MAPPING OF TUMORS IN ELOQUENT AREAS LEVEL III Intraoperative mapping is recommended for patients with diffuse LGGs in eloquent locations compared to patients with non-eloquently located diffuse LGGs as a way of preserving function.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manish K Aghi
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, 505 Parnassus Avenue, Room M779, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0112, USA.
| | - Brian V Nahed
- Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Andrew E Sloan
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Timothy C Ryken
- Department of Neurosurgery, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Steven N Kalkanis
- Department of Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Jeffrey J Olson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
184
|
Yamoah K, Showalter TN, Ohri N. Radiation Therapy Intensification for Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 93:737-45. [PMID: 26530740 PMCID: PMC4635974 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.07.2284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2015] [Accepted: 07/24/2015] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To systematically review the outcomes of randomized trials testing radiation therapy (RT) intensification, including both dose escalation and/or the use of altered fractionation, as a strategy to improve disease control for a number of malignancies. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed a literature search to identify randomized trials testing RT intensification for cancers of the central nervous system, head and neck, breast, lung, esophagus, rectum, and prostate. Findings were described qualitatively. Where adequate data were available, pooled estimates for the effect of RT intensification on local control (LC) or overall survival (OS) were obtained using the inverse variance method. RESULTS In primary central nervous system tumors, esophageal cancer, and rectal cancer, randomized trials have not demonstrated that RT intensification improves clinical outcomes. In breast cancer and prostate cancer, dose escalation has been shown to improve LC or biochemical disease control but not OS. Radiation therapy intensification may improve LC and OS in head and neck and lung cancers, but these benefits have generally been limited to studies that did not incorporate concurrent chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS In randomized trials, the benefits of RT intensification have largely been restricted to trials in which concurrent chemotherapy was not used. Novel strategies to optimize the incorporation of RT in the multimodality treatment of solid tumors should be explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kosj Yamoah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kimmel Cancer Center, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, 111 South 11th Street, Room G-301, Bodine Center, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 955-6700, (215) 955-0412 (fax),
| | - Timothy N. Showalter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA 22908, (434) 982-6278, (434) 243-9789 (fax),
| | - Nitin Ohri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, New York 10467, (718) 920-4140, (718) 231-5064 (fax),
| |
Collapse
|
185
|
Yuh WT, Chung CK, Park SH. Primary Spinal Cord Oligodendroglioma with Postoperative Adjuvant Radiotherapy: A Case Report. KOREAN JOURNAL OF SPINE 2015; 12:160-4. [PMID: 26512274 PMCID: PMC4623174 DOI: 10.14245/kjs.2015.12.3.160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2015] [Revised: 07/26/2015] [Accepted: 07/27/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Primary spinal cord oligodendrogliomas are rare tumors comprising two percent of all spinal cord tumors. Although a treatment guideline has yet to be established, maximal surgical resection is primary in the treatment of spinal cord oligodendrogliomas. Adjuvant radiotherapy has remained controversial, and it is unclear whether chemotherapy adds any benefit. In this case report, the authors present a 24-year-old male who had a seven-year history of left leg weakness and a radiating pain in both legs. Magnetic resonance image (MRI) showed an intramedullary mass at the T4-T8 level. He underwent subtotal removal of the tumor and pathologic diagnosis revealed a WHO grade II oligodendroglioma. The patient was treated with radiotherapy postoperatively and followed up with MRI annually. Clinical and radiological status of the patient had been stationary for four years after the surgery. The five-year follow-up MRI showed an increase in the size and extent of the residual tumor. Despite radiological progression, considering that symptoms and the performance status of the patient had remained unchanged, further treatment has not been performed. Given the clinical outcome of this patient, close observation after subtotal removal with adjuvant radiotherapy is one of the acceptable treatment options for WHO grade II spinal cord oligodendrogliomas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Woon Tak Yuh
- Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chun Kee Chung
- Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung-Hye Park
- Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
186
|
Abstract
Radiotherapy has been a longstanding treatment option for low-grade glioma. Improvements in tumor control and radiation-related toxicity may be attributed to advances in neuroimaging as well as radiotherapy planning and delivery. The discovery of various molecular prognostic factors have aided in patient selection for radiotherapy. These prognostic and predictive factors may also play a key role in determining which patients are likely to benefit most from combined systemic therapy and radiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre - University Health Network, 610 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, 27 King's College Cir, Toronto, ON M5S, Canada
| | - Normand Laperriere
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre - University Health Network, 610 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, 27 King's College Cir, Toronto, ON M5S, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
187
|
Claus EB, Walsh KM, Wiencke JK, Molinaro AM, Wiemels JL, Schildkraut JM, Bondy ML, Berger M, Jenkins R, Wrensch M. Survival and low-grade glioma: the emergence of genetic information. Neurosurg Focus 2015; 38:E6. [PMID: 25552286 DOI: 10.3171/2014.10.focus12367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 280] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
Significant gaps exist in our understanding of the causes and clinical management of glioma. One of the biggest gaps is how best to manage low-grade (World Health Organization [WHO] Grade II) glioma. Low-grade glioma (LGG) is a uniformly fatal disease of young adults (mean age 41 years), with survival averaging approximately 7 years. Although LGG patients have better survival than patients with high-grade (WHO Grade III or IV) glioma, all LGGs eventually progress to high-grade glioma and death. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute suggest that for the majority of LGG patients, overall survival has not significantly improved over the past 3 decades, highlighting the need for intensified study of this tumor. Recently published research suggests that historically used clinical variables are not sufficient (and are likely inferior) prognostic and predictive indicators relative to information provided by recently discovered tumor markers (e.g., 1p/19q deletion and IDH1 or IDH2 mutation status), tumor expression profiles (e.g., the proneural profile) and/or constitutive genotype (e.g., rs55705857 on 8q24.21). Discovery of such tumor and constitutive variation may identify variables needed to improve randomization in clinical trials as well as identify patients more sensitive to current treatments and targets for improved treatment in the future. This article reports on survival trends for patients diagnosed with LGG within the United States from 1973 through 2011 and reviews the emerging role of tumor and constitutive genetics in refining risk stratification, defining targeted therapy, and improving survival for this group of relatively young patients.
Collapse
|
188
|
Nitta M, Muragaki Y, Maruyama T, Ikuta S, Komori T, Maebayashi K, Iseki H, Tamura M, Saito T, Okamoto S, Chernov M, Hayashi M, Okada Y. Proposed therapeutic strategy for adult low-grade glioma based on aggressive tumor resection. Neurosurg Focus 2015; 38:E7. [PMID: 25599276 DOI: 10.3171/2014.10.focus14651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECT There is no standard therapeutic strategy for low-grade glioma (LGG). The authors hypothesized that adjuvant therapy might not be necessary for LGG cases in which total radiological resection was achieved. Accordingly, they established a treatment strategy based on the extent of resection (EOR) and the MIB-1 index: patients with a high EOR and low MIB-1 index were observed without postoperative treatment, whereas those with a low EOR and/or high MIB-1 index received radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy. In the present retrospective study, the authors reviewed clinical data on patients with primarily diagnosed LGGs who had been treated according to the above-mentioned strategy, and they validated the treatment policy. Given their results, they will establish a new treatment strategy for LGGs stratified by EOR, histological subtype, and molecular status. METHODS One hundred fifty-three patients with diagnosed LGG who had undergone resection or biopsy at Tokyo Women's Medical University between January 2000 and August 2010 were analyzed. The patients consisted of 84 men and 69 women, all with ages ≥ 15 years. A total of 146 patients underwent surgical removal of the tumor, and 7 patients underwent biopsy. RESULTS Postoperative RT and nitrosourea-based chemotherapy were administered in 48 and 35 patients, respectively. Extent of resection was significantly associated with both overall survival (OS; p = 0.0096) and progression-free survival (PFS; p = 0.0007) in patients with diffuse astrocytoma but not in those with oligodendroglial subtypes. Chemotherapy significantly prolonged PFS, especially in patients with oligodendroglial subtypes (p = 0.0009). Patients with a mutant IDH1 gene had significantly longer OS (p = 0.034). Multivariate analysis did not identify MIB-1 index or RT as prognostic factors, but it did identify chemotherapy as a prognostic factor for PFS and EOR as a prognostic factor for OS and PFS. CONCLUSIONS The findings demonstrated that EOR was significantly correlated with patient survival; thus, one should aim for maximum tumor resection. In addition, patients with a higher EOR can be safely observed without adjuvant therapy. For patients with partial resection, postoperative chemotherapy should be administered for those with oligodendroglial subtypes, and repeat resection should be considered for those with astrocytic tumors. More aggressive treatment with RT and chemotherapy may be required for patients with a poor prognosis, such as those with diffuse astrocytoma, 1p/19q nondeleted tumors, or IDH1 wild-type oligodendroglial tumors with partial resection.
Collapse
|
189
|
Varlotto J, DiMaio C, Grassberger C, Tangel M, Mackley H, Pavelic M, Specht C, Sogge S, Nguyen D, Glantz M, Saw C, Upadhyay U, Moser R, Yunus S, Rava P, Fitzgerald T, Glanzman J, Sheehan J. Multi-modality management of craniopharyngioma: a review of various treatments and their outcomes. Neurooncol Pract 2015; 3:173-187. [PMID: 31386091 DOI: 10.1093/nop/npv029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2015] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Craniopharyngioma is a rare tumor that is expected to occur in ∼400 patients/year in the United States. While surgical resection is considered to be the primary treatment when a patient presents with a craniopharyngioma, only 30% of such tumors present in locations that permit complete resection. Radiotherapy has been used as both primary and adjuvant therapy in the treatment of craniopharyngiomas for over 50 years. Modern radiotherapeutic techniques, via the use of CT-based treatment planning and MRI fusion, have permitted tighter treatment volumes that allow for better tumor control while limiting complications. Modern radiotherapeutic series have shown high control rates with lower doses than traditionally used in the two-dimensional treatment era. Intracavitary radiotherapy with radio-isotopes and stereotactic radiosurgery may have a role in the treatment of recurrent cystic and solid recurrences, respectively. Recently, due to the exclusive expression of the Beta-catenin clonal mutations and the exclusive expression of BRAF V600E clonal mutations in the overwhelming majority of adamantinomatous and papillary tumors respectively, it is felt that inhibitors of each pathway may play a role in the future treatment of these rare tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Varlotto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Christopher DiMaio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Clemens Grassberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Matthew Tangel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Heath Mackley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Matt Pavelic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Charles Specht
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Steven Sogge
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Dan Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Michael Glantz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Cheng Saw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Urvashi Upadhyay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Richard Moser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Shakeeb Yunus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Paul Rava
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Thomas Fitzgerald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Jonathan Glanzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Jonas Sheehan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| |
Collapse
|
190
|
Atallah V, Gariel F, Gillon P, Crombé A, Mazeron JJ. [Radiotherapy for gliomas in adults: What are the stakes of the follow-up?]. Cancer Radiother 2015; 19:603-9. [PMID: 26278986 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2015.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2015] [Accepted: 05/19/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Linked to the difference of prognosis, the terms and conditions of the follow-up of low-grade and high-grade gliomas treated by irradiation differ highly. Patients treated for a low-grade glioma have prolonged survival. In this case, monitoring of toxicities linked to the treatment is a major objective. Opportunistic infections and depression are corticosteroids side effects widely underestimated. Radionecrosis search and differentiation with recurrent disease are done by MRI. Perfusion and spectroscopy showing a choline/creatine ratio increase are in favour of disease recurrence. Cognitive status and quality of life must be evaluated during the follow-up. They have to be evaluated by adapted scales. Cognitive rehabilitation improves interestingly the post-treatment cognitive status. Pseudoprogression rates for high-grade gliomas are near 20%. MRI is the benchmark imaging for its diagnosis. Diffusion weight imaging and spectroscopy are actually the most interesting techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Atallah
- Service de radiothérapie, institut Bergonié, 226, cours de l'Argonne, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France.
| | - F Gariel
- Service de neuro-imagerie diagnostique et thérapeutique, hôpital Pellegrin, CHU de Bordeaux, place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33076 Bordeaux, France
| | - P Gillon
- Service de radiothérapie, institut Bergonié, 226, cours de l'Argonne, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France
| | - A Crombé
- Service de neuro-imagerie diagnostique et thérapeutique, hôpital Pellegrin, CHU de Bordeaux, place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33076 Bordeaux, France
| | - J-J Mazeron
- Service de radiothérapie oncologique, groupe hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie Paris VI, 47, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75651 Paris cedex 13, France
| |
Collapse
|
191
|
Iwadate Y, Matsutani T, Hirono S, Ikegami S, Shinozaki N, Saeki N. IDH1 mutation is prognostic for diffuse astrocytoma but not low-grade oligodendrogliomas in patients not treated with early radiotherapy. J Neurooncol 2015; 124:493-500. [PMID: 26243269 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-015-1863-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2014] [Accepted: 07/27/2015] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Despite accumulating knowledge regarding molecular backgrounds, the optimal management strategy for low-grade gliomas remains controversial. One reason is the marked heterogeneity in the clinical course. To establish an accurate subclassification of low-grade gliomas, we retrospectively evaluated isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) mutation in clinical specimens of diffuse astrocytomas (DA) and oligodendroglial tumors separately. No patients were treated with early radiotherapy, and modified PCV chemotherapy was used for postoperative residual tumors or recurrence in oligodendroglial tumors. Immunohistochemical evaluation of IDH status, p53 status, O(6)-methylguanine methyltransferase expression, and the MIB-1 index were performed. The 1p and 19q status was analyzed with fluorescence in situ hybridization. Ninety-four patients were followed for a median period of 8.5 years. For DAs, p53 was prognostic for progression- free survival (PFS) and IDH1 was significant for overall survival (OS) with multivariate analysis. In contrast, for oligodendroglial tumors, none of the parameters was significant for PFS or OS. Thus, the significance of IDH1 mutation is not clear in oligodendroglial tumors that are homogeneously indolent and chemosensitive. In contrast, DAs are heterogeneous tumors including some potentially malignant tumors that can be predicted by examining the IDH1 mutation status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasuo Iwadate
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.
| | - Tomoo Matsutani
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan
| | - Seiichiro Hirono
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan
| | - Shiro Ikegami
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan
| | - Natsuki Shinozaki
- Department of Neurosurgery, Narita Red-Cross Hospital, 90-1 Iida-cho, Narita, Chiba, 286-8523, Japan
| | - Naokatsu Saeki
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
192
|
Hervey-Jumper SL, Li J, Lau D, Molinaro AM, Perry DW, Meng L, Berger MS. Awake craniotomy to maximize glioma resection: methods and technical nuances over a 27-year period. J Neurosurg 2015; 123:325-39. [DOI: 10.3171/2014.10.jns141520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 244] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECT
Awake craniotomy is currently a useful surgical approach to help identify and preserve functional areas during cortical and subcortical tumor resections. Methodologies have evolved over time to maximize patient safety and minimize morbidity using this technique. The goal of this study is to analyze a single surgeon's experience and the evolving methodology of awake language and sensorimotor mapping for glioma surgery.
METHODS
The authors retrospectively studied patients undergoing awake brain tumor surgery between 1986 and 2014. Operations for the initial 248 patients (1986–1997) were completed at the University of Washington, and the subsequent surgeries in 611 patients (1997–2014) were completed at the University of California, San Francisco. Perioperative risk factors and complications were assessed using the latter 611 cases.
RESULTS
The median patient age was 42 years (range 13–84 years). Sixty percent of patients had Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scores of 90–100, and 40% had KPS scores less than 80. Fifty-five percent of patients underwent surgery for high-grade gliomas, 42% for low-grade gliomas, 1% for metastatic lesions, and 2% for other lesions (cortical dysplasia, encephalitis, necrosis, abscess, and hemangioma). The majority of patients were in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class 1 or 2 (mild systemic disease); however, patients with severe systemic disease were not excluded from awake brain tumor surgery and represented 15% of study participants. Laryngeal mask airway was used in 8 patients (1%) and was most commonly used for large vascular tumors with more than 2 cm of mass effect. The most common sedation regimen was propofol plus remifentanil (54%); however, 42% of patients required an adjustment to the initial sedation regimen before skin incision due to patient intolerance. Mannitol was used in 54% of cases. Twelve percent of patients were active smokers at the time of surgery, which did not impact completion of the intraoperative mapping procedure. Stimulation-induced seizures occurred in 3% of patients and were rapidly terminated with ice-cold Ringer's solution. Preoperative seizure history and tumor location were associated with an increased incidence of stimulation-induced seizures. Mapping was aborted in 3 cases (0.5%) due to intraoperative seizures (2 cases) and patient emotional intolerance (1 case). The overall perioperative complication rate was 10%.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current best practice described here and developed from multiple regimens used over a 27-year period, it is concluded that awake brain tumor surgery can be safely performed with extremely low complication and failure rates regardless of ASA classification; body mass index; smoking status; psychiatric or emotional history; seizure frequency and duration; and tumor site, size, and pathology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jing Li
- Departments of 1Neurological Surgery and
| | - Darryl Lau
- Departments of 1Neurological Surgery and
| | | | - David W. Perry
- 2Surgical Neurophysiology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
193
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The primary treatment of low-grade gliomas is still claimed to lack robust supporting evidence. Yet, several investigations were performed in the last 2 decades. To critically review these studies could help in further clarifying the role of surgery aimed at maximal resection. RECENT FINDINGS Despite the lack of randomized clinical trials hampering the performance of appropriate meta-analyses, the increasing amount of evidence pointed toward an aggressive surgical strategy to low-grade glioma. Low-grade glioma surgery has to be performed with the appropriate armamentarium, which is the availability of intraoperative stimulation mapping, especially for those lesions occurring in cortical and subcortical eloquent sites. SUMMARY According to the recently published guidelines, surgical treatment has been increasingly recognized as the initial therapeutic act of choice for patients diagnosed with a presumed low-grade glioma, given that total resection can improve seizure control, progression-free survival and overall survival, while reducing the risk of malignant transformation and preserving patients' functional status.
Collapse
|
194
|
Sarmiento JM, Venteicher AS, Patil CG. Early versus delayed postoperative radiotherapy for treatment of low-grade gliomas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 6:CD009229. [PMID: 26118544 PMCID: PMC4506130 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009229.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In most people with low-grade gliomas (LGG), the primary treatment regimen remains a combination of surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. However, the optimal timing of radiotherapy is controversial. It is unclear whether to use radiotherapy in the early postoperative period, or whether radiotherapy should be delayed until tumour progression occurs. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of early postoperative radiotherapy versus radiotherapy delayed until tumour progression for low-grade intracranial gliomas in people who had initial biopsy or surgical resection. SEARCH METHODS We searched up to September 2014 the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 8, 2014), MEDLINE (1948 to Aug week 3, 2014), and EMBASE (1980 to Aug week 3, 2014) to identify trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed radiotherapy following biopsy or surgical resection for the treatment of people with newly diagnosed intracranial LGG (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, mixed oligoastrocytoma, astroblastoma, xanthoastrocytoma, or ganglioglioma). Radiotherapy may include conformal external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with linear accelerator or cobalt-60 sources, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data. We resolved any differences between review authors by discussion. Adverse effects were also extracted from the study report. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting. MAIN RESULTS We included one large, multi-institutional, prospective RCT, involving 311 participants; the risk of bias in this study was unclear. This study found that early postoperative radiotherapy is associated with an increase in time to progression compared to observation (and delayed radiotherapy upon disease progression) for people with LGG but does not significantly improve overall survival (OS). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 years in the early radiotherapy group and 3.4 years in the delayed radiotherapy group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.77; P value < 0.0001; 311 participants; 1 trail; low quality evidence). The median OS in the early radiotherapy group was 7.4 years, while the delayed radiotherapy group experienced a median overall survival of 7.2 years (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.33; P value = 0.872; 311 participants; 1 trail; low quality evidence). The total dose of radiotherapy given was 54 Gy; five fractions of 1.8 Gy per week were given for six weeks. Adverse effects following radiotherapy consisted of skin reactions, otitis media, mild headache, nausea, and vomiting. Rescue therapy was provided to 65% of the participants randomised to delayed radiotherapy. People in both cohorts who were free from tumour progression showed no differences in cognitive deficit, focal deficit, performance status, and headache after one year. However, participants randomised to the early radiotherapy group experienced significantly fewer seizures than participants in the delayed postoperative radiotherapy group at one year (25% versus 41%, P value = 0.0329, respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Given the high risk of bias in the included study, the results of this analysis must be interpreted with caution. Early radiation therapy was associated with the following adverse effects: skin reactions, otitis media, mild headache, nausea, and vomiting. People with LGG who undergo early radiotherapy showed an increase in time to progression compared with people who were observed and had radiotherapy at the time of progression. There was no significant difference in overall survival between people who had early versus delayed radiotherapy; however, this finding may be due to the effectiveness of rescue therapy with radiation in the control arm. People who underwent early radiation had better seizure control at one year than people who underwent delayed radiation. There were no cases of radiation-induced malignant transformation of LGG. However, it remains unclear whether there are differences in memory, executive function, cognitive function, or quality of life between the two groups since these measures were not evaluated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Manuel Sarmiento
- Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Andrew S Venteicher
- Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Chirag G Patil
- Department of Neurosurgery, Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
195
|
Ding B, Gao M, Li Z, Xu C, Fan S, He W. Expression of TYMS in lymph node metastasis from low-grade glioma. Oncol Lett 2015; 10:1569-1574. [PMID: 26622711 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2015.3419] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2014] [Accepted: 05/26/2015] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the expression of thymidylate synthase (TYMS) in the primary foci and metastatic lymph nodes of low-grade glioma, and to analyze the function of TYMS in the lymph node metastases from low-grade glioma. The study included 93 cases of surgically resected and pathologically confirmed low-grade glioma, form patients treated at Huaihe Hospital of Henan University (Kaifeng, China). The following clinical data was obtained from each patient: Gender, age, subjective symptoms (dizziness, headache, a feeling of pressure in the head, etc.), site of disease, tumor type, pathological stage, degree of differentiation and lymph node involvement. The surgically resected gliomas and dissected cervical lymph nodes were immunohistochemically stained, and DNA was extracted from the tumor and lymph node tissues samples for polymerase chain reaction sequencing and amplification. The expression of TYMS in the primary foci and metastatic lymph nodes of low-grade glioma was examined. Additionally, the association between pathological features and the postoperative survival rate of the patients was analyzed. The primary lesions of all 93 cases exhibited positive TYMS expression and 43/157 (27.39%) lymph nodes exhibited positive TYMS expression. Factors that significantly influenced the postoperative survival rate of the patients, included the metastasis of the cervical lymph nodes (P<0.01), the number of dissected cervical lymph nodes (P<0.01) and the degree of differentiation (P<0.05). The metastasis of the cervical lymph nodes was the only independent risk factor affecting postoperative disease-free survival. The risk of recurrence in patients with metastasis of the cervical lymph nodes was 6.3-fold higher than in those without metastasis (P<0.01). Thus, the results of the present study provide a theoretical basis for accurately predicting the prognosis of patients with low-grade malignant brain glioma, reducing the conjecture involved in selecting postoperative treatment strategies and improving therapeutic efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bingqian Ding
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan 475000, P.R. China
| | - Ming Gao
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan 475000, P.R. China
| | - Zhenjiang Li
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan 475000, P.R. China
| | - Chenyang Xu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan 475000, P.R. China
| | - Shaokang Fan
- Department of Neurosurgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan 475000, P.R. China
| | - Weiya He
- Department of Neurology, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan 475000, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
196
|
Ramakrishna R, Hebb A, Barber J, Rostomily R, Silbergeld D. Outcomes in Reoperated Low-Grade Gliomas. Neurosurgery 2015; 77:175-84; discussion 184. [DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000000753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) comprise a diverse set of intrinsic brain tumors that correlate strongly with survival. Data on the effect of reoperation are sparse.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the effect of reoperation on patients with LGG.
METHODS:
Fifty-two consecutive patients with reoperated LGGs treated at the University of Washington between 1986 and 2004 were identified and evaluated in a retrospective analysis.
RESULTS:
The average overall survival (OS) for this cohort was 12.95 ± 0.96 years. The overall 10-year survival rate was 57%. The absence of any residual tumor at either the first or second operation was associated with significantly increased OS. Negative prognostic variables for OS included the use of upfront radiation and pathology at recurrence. The average overall progression-free survival to the first recurrence (PFS1) was 6.23 ± 0.51 years. Positive prognostic factors for improved PFS1 included the use of upfront radiation therapy. Variables not associated with differences in PFS1 included the use of upfront chemotherapy, enhancement, pathology, extent of resection, the presence of residual tumor, and Karnofsky Performance Scale score <80. The average overall progression-free survival to the second recurrence was 2.73 ± 0.39 years. Pathology at recurrence was associated with significant differences in progression-free survival to the second recurrence, as was extent of resection at time of first recurrence, and Karnofsky Performance Scale score <80.
CONCLUSION:
This is among the largest studies to assess variables associated with outcome in patients with reoperated LGG. Reresection appears to provide significant benefit, and extent of resection remains the strongest predictor of OS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rohan Ramakrishna
- Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Department of Neurological Surgery, New York, New York
| | - Adam Hebb
- Colorado Neurological Institute, Englewood, Colorado
| | - Jason Barber
- University of Washington, School of Medicine, Department of Neurological Surgery, Seattle, Washington
| | - Robert Rostomily
- University of Washington, School of Medicine, Department of Neurological Surgery, Seattle, Washington
| | - Daniel Silbergeld
- University of Washington, School of Medicine, Department of Neurological Surgery, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
197
|
Fisher BJ, Hu C, Macdonald DR, Lesser GJ, Coons SW, Brachman DG, Ryu S, Werner-Wasik M, Bahary JP, Liu J, Chakravarti A, Mehta M. Phase 2 study of temozolomide-based chemoradiation therapy for high-risk low-grade gliomas: preliminary results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0424. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 91:497-504. [PMID: 25680596 PMCID: PMC4329190 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.11.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 120] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2014] [Revised: 11/06/2014] [Accepted: 11/10/2014] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0424 was a phase 2 study of a high-risk low-grade glioma (LGG) population who were treated with temozolomide (TMZ) and radiation therapy (RT), and outcomes were compared to those of historical controls. This study was designed to detect a 43% increase in median survival time (MST) from 40.5 to 57.9 months and a 20% improvement in 3-year overall survival (OS) rate from 54% to 65% at a 10% significance level (1-sided) and 96% power. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with LGGs with 3 or more risk factors for recurrence (age ≥40 years, astrocytoma histology, bihemispherical tumor, preoperative tumor diameter of ≥6 cm, or a preoperative neurological function status of >1) were treated with RT (54 Gy in 30 fractions) and concurrent and adjuvant TMZ. RESULTS From 2005 to 2009, 129 evaluable patients (75 males and 54 females) were accrued. Median age was 49 years; 91% had a Zubrod score of 0 or 1; and 69%, 25%, and 6% of patients had 3, 4, and 5 risk factors, respectively. Patients had median and minimum follow-up examinations of 4.1 years and 3 years, respectively. The 3-year OS rate was 73.1% (95% confidence interval: 65.3%-80.8%), which was significantly improved compared to that of prespecified historical control values (P<.001). Median survival time has not yet been reached. Three-year progression-free survival was 59.2%. Grades 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 43% and 10% of patients, respectively. One patient died of herpes encephalitis. CONCLUSIONS The 3-year OS rate of 73.1% for RTOG 0424 high-risk LGG patients is higher than that reported for historical controls (P<.001) and the study-hypothesized rate of 65%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Chen Hu
- Radiation Therapy Oncology Group-Statistical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Glenn J Lesser
- Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
| | | | | | | | | | - Jean-Paul Bahary
- Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | - Minesh Mehta
- University of Maryland Medical Systems, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
198
|
Bourdillon P, Hlaihel C, Guyotat J, Guillotton L, Honnorat J, Ducray F, Cotton F. Prediction of anaplastic transformation in low-grade oligodendrogliomas based on magnetic resonance spectroscopy and 1p/19q codeletion status. J Neurooncol 2015; 122:529-37. [PMID: 25716744 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-015-1737-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2014] [Accepted: 02/01/2015] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess whether combining multimodal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the determination of the 1p/19q codeletion status could improve the ability to predict anaplastic transformation in low-grade oligodendrogliomas. Twenty patients with grade II oligodendrogliomas were followed-up using multimodal MR [proton MR spectroscopy (MRS), perfusion, and conventional MR imaging]. All patients diagnoses were histologically proven, and 1p/19q codeletion status was analyzed for all patients. Median follow-up was 30.5 ± 11.4 months. Anaplastic transformation was observed in six patients. The only MRI feature that was associated with anaplastic transformation was an elevation of the choline/creatine ratio >2.4 which was observed in 4 out of 6 patients with anaplastic transformation versus 1 out of 14 patients without anaplastic transformation. In patients without 1p/19q codeletion, an elevation of the choline/creatine ratio >2.4 was associated with the occurrence of anaplastic transformation in all cases (4 out of 4 patients), with a mean time of 12 months. In contrast, in patients with a 1p/19q codeletion, no anaplastic transformation was observed in the patient who had an elevation of >2.4 of the choline/creatine ratio and two patients demonstrated an anaplastic transformation without any elevation of this ratio.Prospective validation in a larger series is needed, yet the present study suggests that combining data from in vivo proton MRS and genetic analysis could be a promising strategy to predict time to anaplastic transformation at the individual level in patients with low-grade oligodendrogliomas and may help deciding when chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy should be initiated in these tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Bourdillon
- Department of Neurosurgery, Hôpital Pierre Wertheimer, Hospices civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
199
|
Hollon T, Hervey-Jumper SL, Sagher O, Orringer DA. Advances in the Surgical Management of Low-Grade Glioma. Semin Radiat Oncol 2015; 25:181-8. [PMID: 26050588 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2015.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Over the past 2 decades, extent of resection has emerged as a significant prognostic factor in patients with low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Greater extent of resection has been shown to improve overall survival, progression-free survival, and time to malignant transformation. The operative goal in most LGG cases is to maximize extent of resection, while avoiding postoperative neurologic deficits. Several advanced surgical techniques have been developed in an attempt to better achieve maximal safe resection. Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging, fluorescence-guided surgery, intraoperative functional pathway mapping, and neuronavigation are some of the most commonly used techniques with multiple studies to support their efficacy in glioma surgery. By using these techniques either alone or in combination, patients harboring LGGs have a better prognosis with less surgical morbidity following tumor resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Todd Hollon
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Oren Sagher
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | |
Collapse
|
200
|
Abstract
The use of radiotherapy in low-grade glioma has been a topic of controversy over the past 2 decades. Although earlier studies showed no overall survival benefit and no dose response, recent studies demonstrate a possible synergism between radiotherapy and chemotherapy. However, many questions remained unanswered regarding the proper management including the potential roles of biological imaging in treatment planning, the role of reirradiation after recurrence, the role of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton beam radiotherapy, and the proper choice of chemotherapy agents. Further clinical trials are necessary to help integrate these new therapies and technologies into clinical practice.
Collapse
|