P01.08.A Perioperative Levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in seizure naive brain tumor patients with focus on neurocognitive functioning

Background

In seizure-naive brain tumor patients, the efficacy of perioperative prophylactic antiepileptic drugtreatment remains controversial. In case of administration, the common preferred drug is levetiracetam (LEV) because of its favorable pharmacological profile. Research to date has not sufficiently determined how LEV affects cognition in the short term as it does in the perioperative period. The objective of this prospective study was to examine the neurocognitive functioning of seizure-naive brain tumor patients after receiving LEV perioperatively.

Material and methods

Patients with supratentorial brain tumor undergoing surgery received LEV three days before until seven days after surgery as seizure prophylaxis. Cognitive functioning (NeuroCogFX), LEV plasma-levels, hematotoxicity, side-effects, as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL, Qolie31), were recorded preoperatively before (Baseline) and after onset of LEV (Pre-Op), 4-6 days postoperatively (Post-Op) and 21 days postoperatively (Follow-Up).

Results

No significant changes in cognitive functioning and HRQoL were seen after onset of preoperative LEV. There was a significant improvement of NeuroCogFX total-score at Follow-Up (p=0.004) compared to Baseline. The overall-score Qolie31 showed simultaneous improvement patterns as cognitive functioning (p< 0.001). The most frequent side effect related to study drug was somnolence (in 24% of patients).

Conclusion

Following LEV therapy, a significant improvement of cognitive functioning, as well as an improvement in HRQoL, were detected postoperatively. This is presumably due to the debulking effect of the surgery. Nevertheless, LEV has no detrimental effect on cognitivefunctioning in the perioperative phase in seizure-naive brain tumor patients.

P11.55.B Postoperative MRI is able to detect an unexpected residual tumor after surgery of brain metastases: experience from 5 specialized centers

Background

Brain metastases (BM) constitute the most common central nervous system tumors. The treatment options of BM consist of surgery, radiotherapy, radiosurgery, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. Regarding surgery in BM, the extent of resection (EOR) represents a crucial factor for patient prognosis. However, first studies using postoperative MRI demonstrated that an unexpected residual tumor after surgery of BM is not uncommon despite these tumors were considered to be well-demarcated. The aim of this study was thus to investigate in a large cohort including multiple neurosurgical centers the EOR following BM resection, potential risk factors for incomplete resection and postsurgical follow-up data.

Material and Methods

In the current retrospective study conducted at 5 specialized neurosurgical centers in Austria, we included patients with BM resection and available postoperative MRI. The EOR following BM resection was determined by postoperative MRI (complete vs incomplete resection). Additionally, the data on the intraoperative judgement of the EOR of the performing neurosurgeon were collected. Moreover, potential factors for incomplete resection including tumor localization, tumor volume, primary tumor, pattern of contrast media enhancement on imaging and tumor eloquence were investigated. Finally, the rate of local progression of BM after initial surgery was analyzed in the follow-up period and overall survival data were collected.

Results

Altogether, 548 patients with 649 surgically treated BM were included. According to postoperative MRI, complete resection was achieved in 407 (66%) of 649 BM and incomplete resection in 176 (29%) of 649 BM. Misjudgment of the EOR by the neurosurgeon was found in 25% of cases and resulted in an unexpected residual tumor which was evident on postoperative MRI in 122 (22%) BM. Preoperative tumor volume was significantly larger in incompletely resected BM. Moreover, local progression was significantly more common in cases with incompletely resected BM and was also associated with shorter overall survival.

Conclusion

Our data of this study including multiple centers indicate that postoperative MRI is capable to detect a relatively high rate of unexpected residual tumors following resection of BM. Since local progression was more common in BM with residual tumors and this was associated with shorter survival, special attention should be paid to achieve a complete tumor resection.

Relative survival of patients with non-malignant central nervous system tumours: a descriptive study by the Austrian Brain Tumour Registry

BACKGROUND

Unlike malignant primary central nervous system (CNS) tumours outcome data on non-malignant CNS tumours are scarce. For patients diagnosed from 1996 to 2002 5-year relative survival of only 85.0% has been reported. We investigated this rate in a contemporary patient cohort to update information on survival.

METHODS

We followed a cohort of 3983 cases within the Austrian Brain Tumour Registry. All patients were newly diagnosed from 2005 to 2010 with a histologically confirmed non-malignant CNS tumour. Vital status, cause of death, and population life tables were obtained by 31 December 2011 to calculate relative survival.

RESULTS

Overall 5-year relative survival was 96.1% (95% CI 95.1-97.1%), being significantly lower in tumours of borderline (90.2%, 87.2-92.7%) than benign behaviour (97.4%, 96.3-98.3%). Benign tumour survival ranged from 86.8 for neurofibroma to 99.7% for Schwannoma; for borderline tumours survival rates varied from 83.2 for haemangiopericytoma to 98.4% for myxopapillary ependymoma. Cause of death was directly attributed to the CNS tumour in 39.6%, followed by other cancer (20.4%) and cardiovascular disease (15.8%).

CONCLUSION

The overall excess mortality in patients with non-malignant CNS tumours is 5.5%, indicating a significant improvement in survival over the last decade. Still, the remaining adverse impact on survival underpins the importance of systematic registration of these tumours.

Vinorelbine-gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): an AASLC phase II trial. Austrian Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present phase 11 trial was to determine the efficacy and toxicity of vinorelbine-gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 1997 to February 1999, 78 chemotherapy-naive patients (median age 60 years, Karnofsky performance status of 100, 90, 80 and 70 present in 5%, 41%, 36% and 18% of the patients, respectively) with stage IIIB (17%) or IV (83%) NSCLC (65% adenocarcinomas, 22% squamous-cell carcinomas, 10% large-cell carcinomas, 3% mixed-cell carcinomas) received 25 mg/m2 vinorelbine and 1200 mg/m2 gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 of a four-week cycle.

RESULTS

In an intent-to-treat analysis, partial responses were seen in 19% of the patients. The median duration of response was 4.4 months. The median survival time was seven months and the one-year survival rate was 32%. Myelosuppression was the main side effect with WHO grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in 35% and 11% of the patients, respectively. Other side effects were usually mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Vinorelbine-gemcitabine is active, well tolerated and easy to administer on an outpatient basis in advanced NSCLC. Thus a randomized comparison of this combination with platinum-based protocols is warranted in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Vinorelbine/gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase I trial

Vinorelbine and gemcitabine are both active as single agents in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because of their different mechanisms of action, good tolerability and possible administration on an out-patient basis, vinorelbine/gemcitabine should be an interesting combination for palliative chemotherapy. Thus, we initiated a phase I dose-escalation trial in order to determine the maximum tolerated doses of vinorelbine/gemcitabine that can be administered without haematopoietic growth factors, the dose-limiting toxicities and the most frequent side-effects of this novel combination. 40 chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with different doses of vinorelbine/gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15, and this treatment cycle was repeated on day 29. Vinorelbine and gemcitabine were escalated from 10 to 30 mg/m2 and 600 to 1200 mg/m2, respectively. A total of 63 treatment cycles were administered and 27 patients received at least two treatment cycles. Dose-limiting toxicities were leucopenia plus thrombocytopenia (2 patients) and mucositis (1 patient). The maximum tolerated dose was established at 25 mg/m2 vinorelbine combined with 1200 mg/m2 gemcitabine. Frequent side-effects were leucopenia, anaemia, nausea/vomiting, flu-like symptoms, skin rashes and elevation of liver enzymes. The recommended phase II doses are 20-25 mg/m2 vinorelbine combined with 1000-1200 mg/m2 gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15, but myelosuppression will have to be carefully monitored.