-
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2021The study's objective was the evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign in terms of diagnosing IDH-mutant non-codeleted (IDHmut-Noncodel) lower... (Review)
Review
The study's objective was the evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign in terms of diagnosing IDH-mutant non-codeleted (IDHmut-Noncodel) lower grade gliomas (LGG) of the brain. We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Central databases. The last database search was performed on 12 April 2021. Studies that met the following were included: MRI scan assessing the presence of T2-FLAIR mismatch sign, and available IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion status. The quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Twelve studies involving 14 cohorts were included in the quantitative analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio [DOR (95% confidence interval; CI)] was estimated at 34.42 (20.95, 56.56), < 0.01. Pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were estimated at 40% (31-50%; = 0.05) and 97% (93-99%; < 0.01), respectively. The likelihood ratio (LR; 95% CI) for a positive test was 11.39 (6.10, 21.29; < 0.01) and the LR (95% CI) for a negative test was 0.40 (0.24, 0.65; < 0.01).The T2-FLAIR mismatch sign is a highly specific biomarker for the diagnosis of IDHmut-Noncodel LGGs. However, the test was found positive in some other tumors and had a high number of false negative results. The diagnostic accuracy of the mismatch sign might be improved when combined with further imaging parameters.
PubMed: 34573962
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11091620 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Lomustine; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34559423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013579.pub2 -
Neuro-oncology Sep 2021The DNA repair protein O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) causes resistance of tumor cells to alkylating agents. It is a predictive biomarker in high-grade... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
MGMT promoter methylation testing to predict overall survival in people with glioblastoma treated with temozolomide: a comprehensive meta-analysis based on a Cochrane Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
The DNA repair protein O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) causes resistance of tumor cells to alkylating agents. It is a predictive biomarker in high-grade gliomas treated with temozolomide, however, there is no consensus on which test method, methylation sites, and cutoff values to use.
METHODS
We performed a Cochrane Review to examine studies using different techniques to measure MGMT and predict survival in glioblastoma patients treated with temozolomide. Eligible longitudinal studies included (i) adults with glioblastoma treated with temozolomide with or without radiotherapy, or surgery; (ii) where MGMT status was determined in tumor tissue, and assessed by 1 or more technique; and (iii) where overall survival was an outcome parameter, with sufficient information to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Two or more methods were compared in 32 independent cohorts with 3474 patients.
RESULTS
Methylation-specific PCR (MSP) and pyrosequencing (PSQ) techniques were more prognostic than immunohistochemistry for MGMT protein, and PSQ is a slightly better predictor than MSP.
CONCLUSIONS
We cannot draw strong conclusions about use of frozen tissue vs formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded in MSP and PSQ. Also, our meta-analysis does not provide strong evidence about the best CpG sites or threshold. MSP has been studied mainly for CpG sites 76-80 and 84-87 and PSQ at CpG sites ranging from 72 to 95. A cutoff threshold of 9% for CpG sites 74-78 performed better than higher thresholds of 28% or 29% in 2 of the 3 good-quality studies. About 190 studies were identified presenting HRs from survival analysis in patients in which MGMT methylation was measured by 1 technique only.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Brain Neoplasms; DNA Methylation; DNA Modification Methylases; DNA Repair Enzymes; Glioblastoma; Glioma; Humans; Methylation; Promoter Regions, Genetic; Temozolomide; Tumor Suppressor Proteins
PubMed: 34467991
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noab105 -
Pharmacological Research Sep 2021Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature,...
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature, genetic heterogeneity, and protection by the blood brain barrier (BBB) have posed great treatment challenges. The standard treatment for GBMs is surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy. The robust DNA repair and self-renewing capabilities of glioblastoma cells and glioma initiating cells (GICs), respectively, promote resistance against all current treatment modalities. Thus, durable GBM management will require the invention of innovative treatment strategies. In this review, we will describe biological and molecular targets for GBM therapy, the current status of pharmacologic therapy, prominent mechanisms of resistance, and new treatment approaches. To date, medical imaging is primarily used to determine the location, size and macroscopic morphology of GBM before, during, and after therapy. In the future, molecular and cellular imaging approaches will more dynamically monitor the expression of molecular targets and/or immune responses in the tumor, thereby enabling more immediate adaptation of tumor-tailored, targeted therapies.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Glioblastoma; Humans
PubMed: 34302977
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105780 -
Asian Journal of Neurosurgery 2021Although a critical chemotherapeutic, temozolomide's optimal regimen for 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) Grade II gliomas remains elusive, hence there is utility in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE/INTRODUCTION
Although a critical chemotherapeutic, temozolomide's optimal regimen for 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) Grade II gliomas remains elusive, hence there is utility in not only cataloging survival outcomes of Grade II glioma subtypes against the background of temozolomide regimens, but also quantifying differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails was conducted by using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and the Cochrane Handbook of Systemic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS
Each molecular subtype of WHO Grade II glioma had a different temozolomide regimen identified as optimal in prolonging PFS and OS. For PFS, with temozolomide, the 25, 50, and 75 percentiles, were as follows (in months), respectively-A-wt II: 6.90, 12.95, and 19.95; A-mt II: 34.45, 36.01, and 39.60; OD II: 37.90, 46.00, and 55.03 ( = 0.016). For OS, the first quartile (25%), median (50%), third quartile (75%), were respectively identified (in months-A-wt II: 21.6 (median; = 1); A-mt II: 60.6, 85.2, and 109.8; OD II: 86.1, 96.2, and 106.3 ( = 0.37).
CONCLUSION
For each tumor molecular subtype, a different temozolomide regimen was identified as optimal for prolonging PFS and OS. Furthermore, regardless of temozolomide regimen, A-wt II had a significantly shorter PFS than A-mt II and OD-II. Overall, the data can provide useful prognostic insight to patients when making critical treatment decisions. Moreover, by cataloging and assessing survival outcomes per temozolomide regimen, such may facilitate future clinical trial design.
PubMed: 34211862
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_186_20 -
Journal of Experimental & Clinical... Jun 2021Immunotherapy is currently under intensive investigation as a potential breakthrough treatment option for glioblastoma. Given the anatomical and immunological... (Review)
Review
Immunotherapy is currently under intensive investigation as a potential breakthrough treatment option for glioblastoma. Given the anatomical and immunological complexities surrounding glioblastoma, lymphocytes that infiltrate the brain to develop durable immunity with memory will be key. Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid, or poly(I:C), and its derivative poly-ICLC could serve as a priming or boosting therapy to unleash lymphocytes and other factors in the (immuno)therapeutic armory against glioblastoma. Here, we present a systematic review on the effects and efficacy of poly(I:C)/poly-ICLC for glioblastoma treatment, ranging from preclinical work on cellular and murine glioblastoma models to reported and ongoing clinical studies. MEDLINE was searched until 15 May 2021 to identify preclinical (glioblastoma cells, murine models) and clinical studies that investigated poly(I:C) or poly-ICLC in glioblastoma. A systematic review approach was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for ongoing clinical studies. Direct pro-tumorigenic effects of poly(I:C) on glioblastoma cells have not been described. On the contrary, poly(I:C) changes the immunological profile of glioblastoma cells and can also kill them directly. In murine glioblastoma models, poly(I:C) has shown therapeutic relevance as an adjuvant therapy to several treatment modalities, including vaccination and immune checkpoint blockade. Clinically, mostly as an adjuvant to dendritic cell or peptide vaccines, poly-ICLC has been demonstrated to be safe and capable of eliciting immunological activity to boost therapeutic responses. Poly-ICLC could be a valuable tool to enhance immunotherapeutic approaches for glioblastoma. We conclude by proposing several promising combination strategies that might advance glioblastoma immunotherapy and discuss key pre-clinical aspects to improve clinical translation.
Topics: Animals; Brain Neoplasms; Cancer Vaccines; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Clinical Trials as Topic; Glioblastoma; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Mice; Poly I-C; Polylysine
PubMed: 34172082
DOI: 10.1186/s13046-021-02017-2 -
Medicine Jun 2021Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) owes an ominous prognosis: its mean overall survival is 14 months. The extent of surgical resection (ESR) highlights among factors in which... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) owes an ominous prognosis: its mean overall survival is 14 months. The extent of surgical resection (ESR) highlights among factors in which an association has been found to a somewhat better prognosis. However, the association between greater ESR and prolonged overall (OS) survival is not a constant finding nor a proven cause-and-effect phenomenon. To our objective is to establish the strength of association between ESR and OS in patients with GBM through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
In accordance with PRISMA-P recommendations, we conducted a systematic literature search; we included studies with adult patients who had undergone craniotomy for GBM. Our primary outcome is overall postoperative survival at 12 and 24 months. We reviewed 180 studies, excluded 158, and eliminated 8; 14 studies that suited our requirements were analyzed.
RESULTS
The initial level of evidence of all studies is low, and it may be degraded to very low according to GRADE criteria because of design issues. The definition of different levels of the extent of resection is heterogeneous and poorly defined. We found a great amount of variation in the methodology of the operation and the adjuvant treatment protocol. The combined result for relative risk (RR) for OS for 12 months analysis is 1.25 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14-1.36, P < .01], absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 15.7% (95% CI 11.9-19.4), relative risk reduction (RRR) of 0.24 (95% CI 0.18-0.31), number needed to treat (NNT) 6; for 24-month analysis RR is 1.59 (95% CI 1.11-2.26, P < .01) ARR of 11.5% (95% CI 7.7-15.1), relative risk reduction (RRR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.33-0.76), (NNT) 9. In each term analysis, the proportion of alive patients who underwent more extensive resection is significantly higher than those who underwent subtotal resection.
CONCLUSION
Our results sustain a weak but statistically significant association between the ESR and OS in patients with GBM obtained from observational studies with a very low level of evidence according to GRADE criteria. As a consequence, any estimate of effect is very uncertain. Current information cannot sustain a cause-and-effect relationship between these variables.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Neurosurgical Procedures; Observational Studies as Topic; Prognosis; Progression-Free Survival; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 34160432
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026432 -
Cancers May 2021Treatment planning and prognosis in glioma treatment are based on the classification into low- and high-grade oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, which is mainly based on... (Review)
Review
Treatment planning and prognosis in glioma treatment are based on the classification into low- and high-grade oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, which is mainly based on molecular characteristics (IDH1/2- and 1p/19q codeletion status). It would be of great value if this classification could be made reliably before surgery, without biopsy. Machine learning algorithms (MLAs) could play a role in achieving this by enabling glioma characterization on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data without invasive tissue sampling. The aim of this study is to provide a performance evaluation and meta-analysis of various MLAs for glioma characterization. Systematic literature search and meta-analysis were performed on the aggregated data, after which subgroup analyses for several target conditions were conducted. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020191033. We identified 724 studies; 60 and 17 studies were eligible to be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Meta-analysis showed excellent accuracy for all subgroups, with the classification of 1p/19q codeletion status scoring significantly poorer than other subgroups (AUC: 0.748, = 0.132). There was considerable heterogeneity among some of the included studies. Although promising results were found with regard to the ability of MLA-tools to be used for the non-invasive classification of gliomas, large-scale, prospective trials with external validation are warranted in the future.
PubMed: 34073309
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13112606 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Jul 2021
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Adult; Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Prognosis; Seizures
PubMed: 33965323
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.04.023 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Possible treatment strategies for recurrent malignant gliomas include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and combined treatments. Among different reirradiation...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Possible treatment strategies for recurrent malignant gliomas include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and combined treatments. Among different reirradiation modalities, the CyberKnife System has shown promising results. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to establish the efficacy and safety of CyberKnife treatment for recurrent malignant gliomas.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 2000 to 2021 for studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of CyberKnife treatment for recurrent WHO grade III and grade IV gliomas of the brain. Two independent reviewers selected studies and abstracted data. Missing information was requested from the authors via email correspondence. The primary outcomes were median Overall Survival, median Time To Progression, and median Progression-Free Survival. We performed subgroup analyses regarding WHO grade and chemotherapy. Besides, we analyzed the relationship between median Time To Recurrence and median Overall Survival from CyberKnife treatment. The secondary outcomes were complications, local response, and recurrence. Data were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies reporting on 398 patients were included. Median Overall Survival from initial diagnosis and CyberKnife treatment was 22.6 months and 8.6 months. Median Time To Progression and median Progression-Free Survival from CyberKnife treatment were 6.7 months and 7.1 months. Median Overall Survival from CyberKnife treatment was 8.4 months for WHO grade IV gliomas, compared to 11 months for WHO grade III gliomas. Median Overall Survival from CyberKnife treatment was 4.4 months for patients who underwent CyberKnife treatment alone, compared to 9.5 months for patients who underwent CyberKnife treatment plus chemotherapy. We did not observe a correlation between median Time To Recurrence and median Overall Survival from CyberKnife. Rates of acute neurological and acute non-neurological side effects were 3.6% and 13%. Rates of corticosteroid dependency and radiation necrosis were 18.8% and 4.3%.
CONCLUSIONS
Reirradiation of recurrent malignant gliomas with the CyberKnife System provides encouraging survival rates. There is a better survival trend for WHO grade III gliomas and for patients who undergo combined treatment with CyberKnife plus chemotherapy. Rates of complications are low. Larger prospective studies are warranted to provide more accurate results.
PubMed: 33854978
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.652646