1
|
Eekers DBP, Zegers CML, Ahmed KA, Amelio D, Gupta T, Harrabi SB, Kazda T, Scartoni D, Seidel C, Shih HA, Minniti G. Controversies in neuro-oncology: Focal proton versus photon radiation therapy for adult brain tumors. Neurooncol Pract 2024; 11:369-382. [PMID: 39006517 PMCID: PMC11241386 DOI: 10.1093/nop/npae040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) plays a fundamental role in the treatment of malignant and benign brain tumors. Current state-of-the-art photon- and proton-based RT combines more conformal dose distribution of target volumes and accurate dose delivery while limiting the adverse radiation effects. PubMed was systematically searched from from 2000 to October 2023 to identify studies reporting outcomes related to treatment of central nervous system (CNS)/skull base tumors with PT in adults. Several studies have demonstrated that proton therapy (PT) provides a reduced dose to healthy brain parenchyma compared with photon-based (xRT) radiation techniques. However, whether dosimetric advantages translate into superior clinical outcomes for different adult brain tumors remains an open question. This review aims at critically reviewing the recent studies on PT in adult patients with brain tumors, including glioma, meningiomas, and chordomas, to explore its potential benefits compared with xRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle B P Eekers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Catharina M L Zegers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Kamran A Ahmed
- Departments of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA
| | - Dante Amelio
- Trento Proton Therapy Center, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| | - Tejpal Gupta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ACTREC/TMH, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Semi Ben Harrabi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tomas Kazda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Daniele Scartoni
- Trento Proton Therapy Center, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| | - Clemens Seidel
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Central Germany, Leipzig, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Helen A Shih
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Giuseppe Minniti
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomical Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
- IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli IS, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ehret F, Wolfgang J, Allwohn L, Onken J, Wasilewski D, Roohani S, Oertel J, Zips D, Kaul D. Outcomes of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Wild Type Glioblastoma after Re-irradiation. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 42:100653. [PMID: 37502699 PMCID: PMC10369398 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100653] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2023] [Revised: 06/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Glioblastomas (GBM) are the most common malignant primary brain tumors in adults and have a dismal prognosis. Patients frequently suffer from local tumor recurrences, with limited therapeutic options. Re-irradiation represents a possible intervention, but given the recent 5th edition of the World Health Organization classification of central nervous system tumors, studies in isocitrate dehydrogenase wild type (IDH-wt) cohorts undergoing a second course of radiotherapy remain limited. Herein, we sought to describe our institutional experience and outcomes after GBM IDH-wt re-irradiation. Materials and Methods GBM patients with confirmed IDH-wt status undergoing re-irradiation were included in this single-center, retrospective analysis. Results A total of 88 patients were analyzed. The median clinical and radiographic follow-up periods were 4.6 months and 4.4 months, respectively. Most patients had a Karnofsky performance status of at least 80% (n = 57). The median biologically effective dose and 2 Gy equivalent dose (EQD2) for re-irradiations, assuming an α/β ratio of 10 Gy for GBM, were 51.4 and 42.8 Gy, respectively. In total, 71 deaths were recorded. The median overall survival (OS) was 8.0 months. Multivariable Cox regression of OS revealed a positive influence of gross total resection vs. biopsy or no resection (hazard ratio: 0.43, p = 0.02). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.9 months. The multivariable Cox regression for PFS did not detect any significant factors. No clear evidence of radiation necrosis was recorded during the available follow-up. However, only a minority (n = 4) of patients underwent surgery after re-irradiation, none showing histopathological proof of radiation necrosis. Conclusion The prognosis for recurrent IDH-wt GBM after re-irradiation is poor. Patients who are amenable and able to undergo re-resection may have a favorable OS. A second course of radiotherapy with a moderate cumulative EQD2 and small- to medium-sized planning target volumes appeared safe regarding the occurrence of radiation necrosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix Ehret
- Berlin Institute of Health at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Berlin, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Josy Wolfgang
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Luisa Allwohn
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Julia Onken
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany
| | - David Wasilewski
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany
| | - Siyer Roohani
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Berlin, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Joachim Oertel
- Department of Neurosurgery, Saarland University Hospital, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Berlin, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - David Kaul
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Berlin, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lautenschlaeger FS, Dumke R, Schymalla M, Hauswald H, Carl B, Stein M, Keber U, Jensen A, Engenhart-Cabillic R, Eberle F. Comparison of carbon ion and photon reirradiation for recurrent glioblastoma. Strahlenther Onkol 2022; 198:427-435. [PMID: 34523017 PMCID: PMC9038837 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01844-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 07/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Purpose of this study was to investigate overall survival in recurrent glioblastoma treated with either carbon ion reirradiation or photon reirradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this retrospective study we evaluated 78 consecutive patients with recurrent IDH (Isocitrate dehydrogenase)-wildtype glioblastoma (38 patients carbon ion re-radiotherapy, 40 patients photon re-radiotherapy) treated with either carbon ion reirradiation or stereotactic photon reirradiation. 45 Gy (RBE; 15 fractions) carbon ion reirradiation (CIRT) or 39 Gy (13 fractions) photon reirradiation (FSRT) was administered, respectively. Overall survival was investigated with respect to histological, clinical, and epidemiological features. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox statistics were calculated. A propensity score-matched analysis of the FSRT and CIRT groups using variables from a validated prognosis score was carried out. RESULTS The type of reirradiation (CIRT vs. FSRT) significantly influenced overall survival-8.0 months vs. 6.5 months (univariate: p = 0.046)-and remained an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (p = 0.017). Propensity score-adjusted analysis with CIRT versus FSRT as the dependent variable yielded a significant overall survival advantage for the CIRT group (median OS 8.9 versus 7.2 months, p = 0.041, 1‑year survival 29 versus 10%). Adverse events (AE) were evaluated for both subgroups. For the FSRT group no toxicity ≥ grade 4 occurred. For the CIRT subgroup no grade 5 AE occurred, but 1 patient developed a grade 4 radionecrosis. We encountered 4 grade 3 toxicities. One patient developed a zoster at the trunk, 2 progressed in their paresis, and 1 featured progressive dysesthesia. CONCLUSION In conclusion, carbon ion treatment is a safe and feasible treatment option for recurrent glioblastoma. Due to the retrospective nature of the study and two different dose levels for CIRT or FSRT, the improved outcome in CIRT reirradiation might be an effect of higher biological impact from carbon ions or a simple dose-escalation effect. This hypothesis needs prospective testing in larger patient cohorts. A prospective phase III randomized trial is in preparation at our center.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F S Lautenschlaeger
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany.
| | - R Dumke
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - M Schymalla
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - H Hauswald
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
- RNS Gemeinschaftspraxis, St. Josefs-Hospital, Wiesbaden, Germany
- Klinik für Radio-Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - B Carl
- Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Kliniken Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany
- Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - M Stein
- Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | - U Keber
- Institut für Neuropathologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - A Jensen
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | - R Engenhart-Cabillic
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | - F Eberle
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Relapsing High—Grade Glioma from Peritumoral Zone: Critical Review of Radiotherapy Treatment Options. Brain Sci 2022; 12:brainsci12040416. [PMID: 35447948 PMCID: PMC9027370 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12040416] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2022] [Revised: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive brain tumor in adults, with a median survival of about 15 months. After the prior treatment, GBM tends to relapse within the high dose radiation field, defined as the peritumoral brain zone (PTZ), needing a second treatment. In the present review, the primary role of ionizing radiation in recurrent GBM is discussed, and the current literature knowledge about the different radiation modalities, doses and fractionation options at our disposal is summarized. Therefore, the focus is on the necessity of tailoring the treatment approach to every single patient and using radiomics and PET/MRI imaging to have a relatively good outcome and avoid severe toxicity. The use of charged particle therapy and radiosensitizers to overcome GBM radioresistance is considered, even if further studies are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness in the setting of reirradiation.
Collapse
|
5
|
Gordon K, Gulidov I, Gogolin D, Lepilina O, Golovanova O, Semenov A, Dujenko S, Medvedeva K, Koryakin S, Ivanov S, Kaprin A. A Clinical Case of 5 Times Irradiated Recurrent Orbital Hemangiopericytoma. Case Rep Oncol 2021; 14:78-84. [PMID: 33776686 PMCID: PMC7983647 DOI: 10.1159/000513030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2020] [Accepted: 11/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Orbital hemangiopericytomas (HPCs) are rare mesenchymal tumors with a high tendency to recur. Treatment options are quite limited in case of a relapse, but re-irradiation can be useful. Most of the available data limit the possibility of re-irradiation, while novel techniques (e.g., pencil beam proton therapy [PT]) open new approaches for the safe repeating of treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first well-documented case of multi-times (>3) irradiation of tumors located intracranially. The case reported here describes orbital HPCs with proton irradiation performed two times since 1999 in a 30-year-old woman with a medical history as well as surgery followed by conventional radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy, and two times stereotactic RT (in 2009 and 2013). In 2016 the patient came to our hospital with the 3rd relapse of the tumor, located in the left orbit, with an intracranial part, involving cavernous sinus, which was close to the temporal lobe. The 4th course of irradiation was done in May to June 2016 by pencil beam PT. Radiation necrosis occurred after 2 years and was treated with bevacizumab (BVZ). Three years later, another relapse was treated with PT and BVZ. The 9-month follow-up showed complete tumor response without signs of brain toxicity. The patient died due to a brain abscess 1 year after the 5th irradiation. This case shows a possibility of irradiation, applied 5 times to the same location, with promising results and manageable toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantin Gordon
- Department of Proton Therapy, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Igor Gulidov
- Department of Proton Therapy, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Danil Gogolin
- Department of Proton Therapy, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Olga Lepilina
- Department of Dosimetry, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Olga Golovanova
- Department of Radiophysics, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Alexey Semenov
- Department of Proton Therapy, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Sergey Dujenko
- Department of Radiophysics, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Kira Medvedeva
- Department of Proton Therapy, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Sergey Koryakin
- Department of Radiophysics, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Sergey Ivanov
- A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
| | - Andrey Kaprin
- National Medical Research Radiological Center, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Proton therapy re-irradiation preserves health-related quality of life in large recurrent glioblastoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2020; 146:1615-1622. [DOI: 10.1007/s00432-020-03187-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2019] [Accepted: 03/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
7
|
LaRiviere MJ, Santos PMG, Hill-Kayser CE, Metz JM. Proton Therapy. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2019; 33:989-1009. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2019.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
8
|
Poel R, Stuessi Lobmaier A, Andratschke N, Unkelbach J, Tanadini-Lang S, Guckenberger M, Foerster R. Dosimetric comparison of protons vs photons in re-irradiation of intracranial meningioma. Br J Radiol 2019; 92:20190113. [PMID: 31264474 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Re-irradiation of recurrent intracranial meningiomas represents a major challenge due to dose limits of critical structures and the necessity of sufficient dose coverage of the recurrent tumor for local control. The aim of this study was to investigate dosimetric differences between pencil beam scanning protons (PBS) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photons for intracranial re-irradiation of meningiomas. METHODS Nine patients who received an initial dose >50 Gy for intracranial meningioma and who were re-irradiated for recurrence were selected for plan comparison. A volumetric modulated arc therapy photon and a pencil beam scanning proton plan were generated (prescription dose: 15 × 3 Gy) based on the targets used in the re-irradiation treatment. RESULTS In all cases, where the cumulative dose exceeded 100 or 90 Gy, these high dose volumes were larger for the proton plans. The integral doses were significantly higher in all photon plans (reduction with protons: 48.6%, p < 0.01). In two cases (22.2%), organ at risk (OAR) sparing was superior with the proton plan. In one case (11.1%), the photon plan showed a dosimetric advantage. In the remaining six cases (66.7%), we found no clinically relevant differences in dose to the OARs. CONCLUSIONS The dosimetric results of the accumulated dose for a re-irradiation with protons and with photons were very similar. The photon plans had a steeper dose falloff directly outside the target and were superior in minimizing the high dose volumes. The proton plans achieved a lower integral dose. Clinically relevant OAR sparing was extremely case specific. The optimal treatment modality should be assessed individually. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Dose sparing in re-irradiation of intracranial meningiomas with protons or photons is highly case specific and the optimal treatment modality needs to be assessed on an individual basis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Poel
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.,2 Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherer Institute (PSI), Villingen, Switzerland
| | | | - Nicolaus Andratschke
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jan Unkelbach
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Robert Foerster
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Re-irradiation for recurrent glioblastoma (GBM): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurooncol 2018; 142:79-90. [PMID: 30523605 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-018-03064-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 94] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2018] [Accepted: 11/24/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the efficacy and toxicity of re-irradiation for patients with recurrent GBM. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched various biomedical databases from 1998 to 2018, for eligible studies where patients were treated with re-irradiation for recurrent GBM. Outcomes of interest were 6 and 12-month overall survival (OS-6, OS-12), 6 and 12-month progression free survival (PFS-6, PFS-12) and serious (Grade 3 +) adverse events (AE). We used the random effects model to pool outcomes across studies and compared pre-defined subgroups using interaction test. Methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. RESULTS We found 50 eligible non-comparative studies including 2095 patients. Of these, 42% were of good or fair quality. The pooled results were as follows: OS-6 rate 73% (95% confidence interval (CI) 69-77%), OS-12 rate 36% (95% CI 32-40%), PFS-6 rate 43% (95% CI 35-50%), PFS-12 rate 17% (95% CI 13-20%), and Grade 3 + AE rate 7% (95% CI 4-10%). Subgroup analysis showed that prospective studies reported higher toxicity rates, and studies which utilized brachytherapy to have a longer OS-12. Within the external beam radiotherapy group, there was no dose-response [above or below 36 Gy in 2 Gy equivalent doses (EQD2)]. However, a short fractionation regimen (≤ 5 fractions) seemed to provide superior PFS-6. CONCLUSION The available evidence, albeit mostly level III, suggests that re-irradiation provides encouraging disease control and survival rates. Toxicity was not uniformly reported, but seemed to be low from the included studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are needed to establish the optimal management strategy for recurrent GBM.
Collapse
|
10
|
Abstract
The physical characteristics of proton therapy result in steeper dose gradients and superior dose conformality compared to photon therapy. These properties render proton therapy ideal for skull base tumors requiring dose escalation for optimal tumor control, and may also be beneficial for brain tumors as a means of mitigating radiation-related adverse effects. This review summarizes the literature regarding the role of proton therapy compared to photon therapy in the treatment of adult brain and skull base tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Safia K Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
| | - Robert L Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Prelaj A, Rebuzzi SE, Grassi M, Giròn Berrìos JR, Pecorari S, Fusto C, Ferrara C, Salvati M, Stati V, Tomao S, Bianco V. Multimodal treatment for local recurrent malignant gliomas: Resurgery and/or reirradiation followed by chemotherapy. Mol Clin Oncol 2018; 10:49-57. [PMID: 30655977 PMCID: PMC6313879 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2018.1745] [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] [Received: 03/07/2018] [Accepted: 07/05/2018] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
The therapeutic management of recurrent malignant gliomas (MGs) is not determined. Therefore, the efficacy of a multimodal approach and a combination systemic therapy was investigated. A retrospective analysis of 26 MGs patients at first relapse treated with multimodal therapy (chemotherapy plus surgery and/or reirradiation) or chemotherapy alone was performed. Second-line chemotherapy consisted of fotemustine (FTM) in combination with bevacizumab (BEV) (cFTM/BEV) or followed by third-line BEV (sFTM/BEV). Subgroup analyses were performed. Multimodal therapy provided a higher overall response rate (ORR) (73 vs. 47%), disease control rate (DCR) (82 vs. 67%), median progression-free survival (mPFS) (11 vs. 7 months; P=0.08) and median overall survival (mOS) (13 vs. 8 months; P=0.04) compared with chemotherapy. Concomitant FTM/BEV resulted in higher ORR (84 vs. 36%), DCR (92 vs. 57%), mPFS (10 vs. 5 months; P=0.22) and mOS (11 vs. 5.2 months; P=0.15) compared with sFTM/BEV. Methylated patients did not experience additional survival benefits with multimodality treatment but had higher mPFS (10 vs 7.1 months; P=0.33) and mOS (11 vs. 8 months; P=0.33) with cFTM/BEV. Unmethylated patients experienced the greatest survival benefit with the multimodal approach (mPFS: 10 vs. 5 months; mOS 11 vs 6 months; both P=0.02) and cFTM/BEV (mPFS: 5 vs. 2 months; mOS 6 vs. 3.2 months; both P=0.01). In conclusion, in recurrent MGs, multimodal therapy and cFTM/BEV provide survival and response benefits. Methylated patients benefit from a cFTM/BEV but not from a multimodal approach. Notably, unmethylated patients had the highest survival benefit with the two strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arsela Prelaj
- Department of Medical Oncology Unit A, Policlinico Umberto I, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-00161 Rome, Italy
| | - Sara Elena Rebuzzi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino IST, I-16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Massimiliano Grassi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino IST, I-16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Julio Rodrigo Giròn Berrìos
- Department of Medical Oncology Unit A, Policlinico Umberto I, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-00161 Rome, Italy
| | - Silvia Pecorari
- Department of Medical Oncology Unit A, Policlinico Umberto I, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-00161 Rome, Italy
| | - Carmela Fusto
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomo-Pathological Sciences, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, I-00161 Rome, Italy
| | - Carla Ferrara
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Maurizio Salvati
- Department of Neurosurgery, IRCCS Neuromed, I-86077 Pozzilli, Italy
| | - Valeria Stati
- Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Silverio Tomao
- Department of Medical Oncology Unit A, Policlinico Umberto I, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-00161 Rome, Italy.,Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-04100 Latina, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Bianco
- Department of Medical Oncology Unit A, Policlinico Umberto I, 'Sapienza' University of Rome, I-00161 Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Alphandéry E. Glioblastoma Treatments: An Account of Recent Industrial Developments. Front Pharmacol 2018; 9:879. [PMID: 30271342 PMCID: PMC6147115 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2018] [Accepted: 07/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The different drugs and medical devices, which are commercialized or under industrial development for glioblastoma treatment, are reviewed. Their different modes of action are analyzed with a distinction being made between the effects of radiation, the targeting of specific parts of glioma cells, and immunotherapy. Most of them are still at a too early stage of development to firmly conclude about their efficacy. Optune, which triggers antitumor activity by blocking the mitosis of glioma cells under the application of an alternating electric field, seems to be the only recently developed therapy with some efficacy reported on a large number of GBM patients. The need for early GBM diagnosis is emphasized since it could enable the treatment of GBM tumors of small sizes, possibly easier to eradicate than larger tumors. Ways to improve clinical protocols by strengthening preclinical studies using of a broader range of different animal and tumor models are also underlined. Issues related with efficient drug delivery and crossing of blood brain barrier are discussed. Finally societal and economic aspects are described with a presentation of the orphan drug status that can accelerate the development of GBM therapies, patents protecting various GBM treatments, the different actors tackling GBM disease, the cost of GBM treatments, GBM market figures, and a financial analysis of the different companies involved in the development of GBM therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edouard Alphandéry
- Institut de Minéralogie, de Physique des Matériaux et de Cosmochimie, UMR 7590 CNRS, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC, University Paris 06, Paris, France.,Nanobacterie SARL, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ho A, Jena R. Re-irradiation in the Brain: Primary Gliomas. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018; 30:124-136. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2017.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2017] [Revised: 11/02/2017] [Accepted: 11/06/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
14
|
Systematic assessment of clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for reirradiation. Radiother Oncol 2017; 125:21-30. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2017] [Revised: 08/06/2017] [Accepted: 08/06/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
15
|
Taunk NK, Moraes FY, Escorcia FE, Mendez LC, Beal K, Marta GN. External beam re-irradiation, combination chemoradiotherapy, and particle therapy for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2016; 16:347-58. [PMID: 26781426 DOI: 10.1586/14737140.2016.1143364] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Glioblastoma is a common aggressive primary malignant brain tumor, and is nearly universal in progression and mortality after initial treatment. Re-irradiation presents a promising treatment option for progressive disease, both palliating symptoms and potentially extending survival. Highly conformal radiation techniques such as stereotactic radiosurgery and hypofractionated radiosurgery are effective short courses of treatment that allow delivery of high doses of therapeutic radiation with steep dose gradients to protect normal tissue. Patients with higher performance status, younger age, and longer interval between primary treatment and progression represent the best candidates for re-irradiation. Multiple studies are also underway involving combinations of radiation and systemic therapy to bend the survival curve and improve the therapeutic index. In the multimodal treatment of recurrent high-grade glioma, the use of surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy should be highly individualized. Here we comprehensively review radiation therapy and techniques, along with discussion of combination treatment and novel strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil K Taunk
- a Department of Radiation Oncology , Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York , New York , USA
| | - Fabio Y Moraes
- b Department of Radiation Oncology , Hospital Sírio-Libanês , São Paulo , Brazil
| | - Freddy E Escorcia
- a Department of Radiation Oncology , Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York , New York , USA
| | - Lucas Castro Mendez
- d Department of Radiation Oncology , Instituto de Radiologia - Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) , São Paulo , Brazil
| | - Kathryn Beal
- a Department of Radiation Oncology , Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York , New York , USA
| | - Gustavo N Marta
- b Department of Radiation Oncology , Hospital Sírio-Libanês , São Paulo , Brazil.,c Department of Radiation Oncology , Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP) - Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) , São Paulo , Brazil
| |
Collapse
|