Tumor-treating fields: time for demystification

Tumor treating fields in glioblastoma: long-term treatment and high compliance as favorable prognostic factors

Introduction

Tumor treating fields (TTFields) have earned substantial attention in recent years as a novel therapeutic approach with the potential to improve the prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) patients. However, the impact of TTFields remains a subject of ongoing debate. This study aimed to offer real-world evidence on TTFields therapy for GBM, and to investigate the clinical determinants affecting its efficacy.

Methods

We have reported a retrospective analysis of 81 newly diagnosed Chinese GBM patients who received TTFields/Stupp treatment in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression models with time-dependent covariates were utilized to address non-proportional hazards and to assess the influence of clinical variables on PFS and OS.

Results

The median PFS and OS following TTFields/STUPP treatment was 12.6 months (95% CI 11.0-14.1) and 21.3 months (95% CI 10.0-32.6) respectively. Long-term TTFields treatment (>2 months) exhibits significant improvements in PFS and OS compared to the short-term treatment group (≤2 months). Time-dependent covariate COX analysis revealed that longer TTFields treatment was correlated with enhanced PFS and OS for up to 12 and 13 months, respectively. Higher compliance to TTFields (≥ 0.8) significantly reduced the death risk (HR=0.297, 95%CI 0.108-0.819). Complete surgical resection and MGMT promoter methylation were associated with significantly lower risk of progression (HR=0.337, 95% CI 0.176-0.643; HR=0.156, 95% CI 0.065-0.378) and death (HR=0.276, 95% CI 0.105-0.727; HR=0.249, 95% CI 0.087-0.710).

Conclusion

The TTFields/Stupp treatment may prolong median OS and PFS in GBM patients, with long-term TTFields treatment, higher TTFields compliance, complete surgical resection, and MGMT promoter methylation significantly improving prognosis.

Tumor Treating Fields Combine with Temozolomide for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Retrospective Analysis of Chinese Patients in a Single Center

Introduction: TTFields plus Temozolomide (TTFields/TMZ) extended survival versus TMZ alone in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients in the EF-14 trial. We have reported a retrospective analysis of newly diagnosed Chinese GBM patients who received TTFields/TMZ treatment and TMZ treatment from August 2018 to May 2021 in Huashan hospital in Shanghai. Methods: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were constructed using the Kaplan−Meier method. A Cox proportional hazards regression model, propensity score matched data, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score were used to assess the effect of TTFields and account for confounding factors. Results: In the preliminary analysis, the median PFS in TTFields/TMZ group was 16 months (95% CI, 9.6−24.6) versus 11 months (95% CI, 9−12) in TMZ group (p < 0.05). Median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4-NA) with TTFields/TMZ versus 15 months (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 13−18) with TMZ alone. The multivariate analysis identified surgery type, STUPP scheme, IDH status, and TTFields use as favorable prognostic factors. After PSM adjustment, the variate among the groups was similar, except that the methylation rate of MGMT promoter remained high in the TMZ group (12 v 32 months; p = 0.011). Upon IPTW Survival analysis, TTFields was associated with a significantly lower risk of death (HR = 0.19 in OS; 95% CI, 0.09−0.41) and progression (HR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.14−0.9) compared with TMZ group. Conclusion: In the final analysis of our single-center Chinese patients with glioblastoma, adding TTFields to temozolomide chemotherapy resulted in statistically significant improvement in PFS and OS.

Tumor-Treating Fields for the treatment of glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor-Treating Fields (TTFields) is an emerging treatment modality for glioblastoma (GBM). Studies have shown a good safety profile alongside improved efficacy in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM), while a less clear effect was shown for recurrent GBM (rGBM). Despite regulatory support, sectors of the neuro-oncology community have been reluctant to accept it as part of the standard treatment protocol. To establish an objective understanding of TTFields' mechanism of action, safety, efficacy, and economical implications, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Twenty studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria, incorporating 1636 patients (542 ndGBM and 1094 rGBM), and 11 558 patients (6403 ndGBM and 5155 rGBM) analyzed for the clinical outcomes and safety endpoints, respectively.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated improved clinical efficacy and a good safety profile of TTFields. For ndGBM, pooled median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 21.7 (95%CI = 19.6-23.8) and 7.2 (95%CI = 6.1-8.2) months, respectively. For rGBM, pooled median OS and PFS were 10.3 (95%CI = 8.3-12.8) and 5.7 (95%CI = 2.8-10) months, respectively. Compliance of ≥75% was associated with an improved OS and the predominant adverse events were dermatologic, with a pooled prevalence of 38.4% (95%CI = 32.3-44.9). Preclinical studies demonstrated TTFields' diverse molecular mechanism of action, its potential synergistic efficacy, and suggest possible benefits for certain populations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the use of TTFields for GBM, alongside the standard-of-care treatment protocol, and provides a practical summary, discussing the current clinical and preclinical aspects of the treatment and their implication on the disease course.

Current usage of tumor treating fields for glioblastoma

Background

Tumor Treating Fields (TTF) have entered clinical practice for newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma (GGM). However, controversies remain unresolved with regard to appropriate usage. We sought to determine TTF usage in major academic neuro-oncology programs in New York City, USA and Heidelberg, Germany and understand current attitudes toward TTF usage among providers.

Methods

We retrospectively determined TTF usage among patients with GGM, before and since the publication of key clinical trial results and regulatory approvals. We also surveyed attendees of an educational session related to TTF during the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.

Results

TTF usage remains infrequent (3-12% of patients with newly diagnosed GBM, and 0-16% of patients with recurrent disease) in our practices, although it has increased over time. Among 30 survey respondents (77% of whom self-identified as neuro- or medical oncologists), 60% were convinced that TTF prolongs survival for newly diagnosed GGM despite published phase III data and regulatory approval, and only 30% viewed TTF as definitively part of the standard of care treatment. A majority (87%) opposed mandating TTF incorporation into the design of clinical trials.

Conclusions

Providers continue to view TTF with some level of skepticism, with a lack of additional supportive data and logistical concerns representing continued barriers to uptake.