1
|
Fernandez-Gil BI, Schiapparelli P, Navarro-Garcia de Llano JP, Otamendi-Lopez A, Ulloa-Navas MJ, Michaelides L, Vazquez-Ramos CA, Herchko SM, Murray ME, Cherukuri Y, Asmann YW, Trifiletti DM, Quiñones-Hinojosa A. Effects of PreOperative radiotherapy in a preclinical glioblastoma model: a paradigm-shift approach. J Neurooncol 2024; 169:633-646. [PMID: 39037687 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-024-04765-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 06/29/2024] [Indexed: 07/23/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE PreOperative radiotherapy (RT) is commonly used in the treatment of brain metastasis and different cancer types but has never been used in primary glioblastoma (GBM). Here, we aim to establish, describe, and validate the use of PreOperative RT for the treatment of GBM in a preclinical model. METHODS Rat brains were locally irradiated with 30-Gy, hypofractionated in five doses 2 weeks before or after the resection of intracranial GBM. Kaplan-Meier analysis determined survival. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was performed, and nuclei size and p21 senescence marker were measured in both resected and recurrent rodent tumors. Immunohistochemistry assessed microglia/macrophage markers, and RNAseq analyzed gene expression changes in recurrent tumors. Akoya Multiplex Staining on two human patients from our ongoing Phase I/IIa trial served as proof of principle. RESULTS PreOperative RT group median survival was significantly higher than PostOperative RT (p < 0.05). Radiation enlarged cytoplasm and nuclei in PreOperative RT resected tumors (p < 0.001) and induced senescence in PostOperative RT recurrent tumors (p < 0.05). Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) suggested a more proliferative profile in PreOperative RT group. PreOperative RT showed lower macrophage/microglia recruitment in recurrent tumors (p < 0.01) compared to PostOperative RT. Akoya Multiplex results indicated TGF-ß accumulation in the cytoplasm of TAMs and CD4 + lymphocyte predominance in PostOperative group. CONCLUSIONS This is the first preclinical study showing feasibility and longer overall survival using neoadjuvant radiotherapy before GBM resection in a mammalian model. This suggests strong superiority for new clinical radiation strategies. Further studies and trials are required to confirm our results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Steven M Herchko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Melissa E Murray
- Department of Molecular Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Yesesri Cherukuri
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Yan W Asmann
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Alger E, Minchom A, Lee Aiyegbusi O, Schipper M, Yap C. Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 64:102228. [PMID: 37781154 PMCID: PMC10541462 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). Methods DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions. Findings Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally. Interpretation This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting. Funding EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Alger
- Clinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anna Minchom
- Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Matthew Schipper
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Christina Yap
- Clinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Diehl CD, Giordano FA, Grosu AL, Ille S, Kahl KH, Onken J, Rieken S, Sarria GR, Shiban E, Wagner A, Beck J, Brehmer S, Ganslandt O, Hamed M, Meyer B, Münter M, Raabe A, Rohde V, Schaller K, Schilling D, Schneider M, Sperk E, Thomé C, Vajkoczy P, Vatter H, Combs SE. Opportunities and Alternatives of Modern Radiation Oncology and Surgery for the Management of Resectable Brain Metastases. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:3670. [PMID: 37509330 PMCID: PMC10377800 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15143670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2023] [Revised: 07/10/2023] [Accepted: 07/11/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Postsurgical radiotherapy (RT) has been early proven to prevent local tumor recurrence, initially performed with whole brain RT (WBRT). Subsequent to disadvantageous cognitive sequalae for the patient and the broad distribution of modern linear accelerators, focal irradiation of the tumor has omitted WBRT in most cases. In many studies, the effectiveness of local RT of the resection cavity, either as single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or hypo-fractionated stereotactic RT (hFSRT), has been demonstrated to be effective and safe. However, whereas prospective high-level incidence is still lacking on which dose and fractionation scheme is the best choice for the patient, further ablative techniques have come into play. Neoadjuvant SRS (N-SRS) prior to resection combines straightforward target delineation with an accelerated post-surgical phase, allowing an earlier start of systemic treatment or rehabilitation as indicated. In addition, low-energy intraoperative RT (IORT) on the surgical bed has been introduced as another alternative to external beam RT, offering sterilization of the cavity surface with steep dose gradients towards the healthy brain. This consensus paper summarizes current local treatment strategies for resectable brain metastases regarding available data and patient-centered decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian D Diehl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, 81675 München, Germany
- Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 80336 München, Germany
| | - Frank A Giordano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
| | - Anca-L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center, Medical Faculty, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
| | - Sebastian Ille
- Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 München, Germany
| | - Klaus-Henning Kahl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
| | - Julia Onken
- Department of Neurosurgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
- Berlin Institute of Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Berlin, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stefan Rieken
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Niedersachsen (CCC-N), 37075 Göttingen, Germany
| | - Gustavo R Sarria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, University of Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Ehab Shiban
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
| | - Arthur Wagner
- Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 München, Germany
| | - Jürgen Beck
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
| | - Stefanie Brehmer
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
| | - Oliver Ganslandt
- Neurosurgical Clinic, Klinikum Stuttgart, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Motaz Hamed
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Bernhard Meyer
- Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 München, Germany
| | - Marc Münter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Stuttgart Katharinenhospital, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Andreas Raabe
- Department of Neurosurgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Veit Rohde
- Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
| | - Karl Schaller
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Geneva Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Daniela Schilling
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, 81675 München, Germany
- Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Matthias Schneider
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Elena Sperk
- Mannheim Cancer Center, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
| | - Claudius Thomé
- Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Peter Vajkoczy
- Department of Neurosurgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
| | - Hartmut Vatter
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, 81675 München, Germany
- Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 80336 München, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tewarie IA, Senko AW, Jessurun CAC, Zhang AT, Hulsbergen AFC, Rendon L, McNulty J, Broekman MLD, Peng LC, Smith TR, Phillips JG. Predicting leptomeningeal disease spread after resection of brain metastases using machine learning. J Neurosurg 2023; 138:1561-1569. [PMID: 36272119 DOI: 10.3171/2022.8.jns22744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 08/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The incidence of leptomeningeal disease (LMD) has increased as treatments for brain metastases (BMs) have improved and patients with metastatic disease are living longer. Sample sizes of individual studies investigating LMD after surgery for BMs and its risk factors have been limited, ranging from 200 to 400 patients at risk for LMD, which only allows the use of conventional biostatistics. Here, the authors used machine learning techniques to enhance LMD prediction in a cohort of surgically treated BMs. METHODS A conditional survival forest, a Cox proportional hazards model, an extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) classifier, an extra trees classifier, and logistic regression were trained. A synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) was used to train the models and handle the inherent class imbalance. Patients were divided into an 80:20 training and test set. Fivefold cross-validation was used on the training set for hyperparameter optimization. Patients eligible for study inclusion were adults who had consecutively undergone neurosurgical BM treatment, had been admitted to Brigham and Women's Hospital from January 2007 through December 2019, and had a minimum of 1 month of follow-up after neurosurgical treatment. RESULTS A total of 1054 surgically treated BM patients were included in this analysis. LMD occurred in 168 patients (15.9%) at a median of 7.05 months after BM diagnosis. The discrimination of LMD occurrence was optimal using an XGboost algorithm (area under the curve = 0.83), and the time to LMD was prognosticated evenly by the random forest algorithm and the Cox proportional hazards model (C-index = 0.76). The most important feature for both LMD classification and regression was the BM proximity to the CSF space, followed by a cerebellar BM location. Lymph node metastasis of the primary tumor at BM diagnosis and a cerebellar BM location were the strongest risk factors for both LMD occurrence and time to LMD. CONCLUSIONS The outcomes of LMD patients in the BM population are predictable using SMOTE and machine learning. Lymph node metastasis of the primary tumor at BM diagnosis and a cerebellar BM location were the strongest LMD risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ishaan Ashwini Tewarie
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 4Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; and
| | - Alexander W Senko
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Charissa A C Jessurun
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 3Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague
- 4Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; and
| | - Abigail Tianai Zhang
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Alexander F C Hulsbergen
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 3Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague
- 4Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; and
| | - Luis Rendon
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jack McNulty
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Marike L D Broekman
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 3Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague
- 4Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; and
| | - Luke C Peng
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Timothy R Smith
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - John G Phillips
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 5Department of Radiation Oncology, Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, Tennessee
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Scharl S, Kessel KA, Diehl C, Gempt J, Meyer B, Zimmer C, Straube C, Combs SE. Is local radiotherapy a viable option for patients with an opening of the ventricles during surgical resection of brain metastases? Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:276. [PMID: 33303000 PMCID: PMC7730779 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01725-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 12/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Local hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) of the resection cavity is emerging as the standard of care in the treatment of patients with a limited number of brain metastases as it warrants less neurological impairment compared to whole brain radiotherapy. In periventricular metastases surgical resection can lead to an opening of the ventricles and subsequently carries a potential risk of cerebrospinal tumour cell dissemination. The aim of this study was to assess whether local radiotherapy of the resection cavity is viable in these cases. Methods From our institutional database we analyzed the data of 125 consecutive patients with resected brain metastases treated in our institution with HFSRT between 2009 and 2017. The incidence of LMD, overall survival (OS), local recurrence (LC) and distant recurrence were evaluated depending on ventricular opening (VO) during surgery. Results From all 125 patients, the ventricles were opened during surgery in 14 cases (11.2%). None of the patients with VO and 7 patients without VO during surgery developed LMD (p = 0.371). OS (p = 0.817), LC (p = 0.524) and distant recurrence (p = 0.488) did not differ in relation to VO during surgical resection. However, the incidence of distant intraventricular recurrence was slightly increased in patients with VO (14.3% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.01). Conclusion VO during neurosurgical resection did not affect the outcome after HFSRT of the resection cavity in patients with brain metastases. Particularly, the incidence of LMD was not increased in patients receiving local HFSRT after VO. HFSRT can therefore be offered independently of VO as a local treatment of tumor bed after resection of brain metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophia Scharl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany
| | - Kerstin A Kessel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany.,Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, Neuherberg, Germany.,Deutsches Konsortium Für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Diehl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany
| | - Jens Gempt
- Department of Neurosurgery, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany
| | - Bernhard Meyer
- Department of Neurosurgery, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany
| | - Claus Zimmer
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Straube
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany.,Deutsches Konsortium Für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich, Germany. .,Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, Neuherberg, Germany. .,Deutsches Konsortium Für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|