-
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jun 2023The present review aimed to establish an understanding of the pathophysiology of leptomeningeal disease as it relates to late-stage development among different cancer... (Review)
Review
The present review aimed to establish an understanding of the pathophysiology of leptomeningeal disease as it relates to late-stage development among different cancer types. For our purposes, the focused metastatic malignancies include breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, primary central nervous system tumors, and hematologic cancers (lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma). Of note, our discussion was limited to cancer-specific leptomeningeal metastases secondary to the aforementioned primary cancers. LMD mechanisms secondary to non-cancerous pathologies, such as infection or inflammation of the leptomeningeal layer, were excluded from our scope of review. Furthermore, we intended to characterize general leptomeningeal disease, including the specific anatomical infiltration process/area, CSF dissemination, manifesting clinical symptoms in patients afflicted with the disease, detection mechanisms, imaging modalities, and treatment therapies (both preclinical and clinical). Of these parameters, leptomeningeal disease across different primary cancers shares several features. Pathophysiology regarding the development of CNS involvement within the mentioned cancer subtypes is similar in nature and progression of disease. Consequently, detection of leptomeningeal disease, regardless of cancer type, employs several of the same techniques. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis in combination with varied imaging (CT, MRI, and PET-CT) has been noted in the current literature as the gold standard in the diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis. Treatment options for the disease are both varied and currently in development, given the rarity of these cases. Our review details the differences in leptomeningeal disease as they pertain through the lens of several different cancer subtypes in an effort to highlight the current state of targeted therapy, the potential shortcomings in treatment, and the direction of preclinical and clinical treatments in the future. As there is a lack of comprehensive reviews that seek to characterize leptomeningeal metastasis from various solid and hematologic cancers altogether, the authors intended to highlight not only the overlapping mechanisms but also the distinct patterning of disease detection and progression as a means to uniquely treat each metastasis type. The scarcity of LMD cases poses a barrier to more robust evaluations of this pathology. However, as treatments for primary cancers have improved over time, so has the incidence of LMD. The increase in diagnosed cases only represents a small fraction of LMD-afflicted patients. More often than not, LMD is determined upon autopsy. The motivation behind this review stems from the increased capacity to study LMD in spite of scarcity or poor patient prognosis. In vitro analysis of leptomeningeal cancer cells has allowed researchers to approach this disease at the level of cancer subtypes and markers. We ultimately hope to facilitate the clinical translation of LMD research through our discourse.
Topics: Humans; Female; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Meningeal Carcinomatosis; Breast Neoplasms; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Hematologic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37366925
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30060442 -
Blood Aug 2020Cytokine storm syndromes (CSS) are severe hyperinflammatory conditions characterized by excessive immune system activation leading to organ damage and death....
Cytokine storm syndromes (CSS) are severe hyperinflammatory conditions characterized by excessive immune system activation leading to organ damage and death. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), a disease often associated with inherited defects in cell-mediated cytotoxicity, serves as a prototypical CSS for which the 5-year survival is only 60%. Frontline therapy for HLH consists of the glucocorticoid dexamethasone (DEX) and the chemotherapeutic agent etoposide. Many patients, however, are refractory to this treatment or relapse after an initial response. Notably, many cytokines that are elevated in HLH activate the JAK/STAT pathway, and the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) has shown efficacy in murine HLH models and humans with refractory disease. We recently reported that cytokine-induced JAK/STAT signaling mediates DEX resistance in T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cells, and that this could be effectively reversed by RUX. On the basis of these findings, we hypothesized that cytokine-mediated JAK/STAT signaling might similarly contribute to DEX resistance in HLH, and that RUX treatment would overcome this phenomenon. Using ex vivo assays, a murine model of HLH, and primary patient samples, we demonstrate that the hypercytokinemia of HLH reduces the apoptotic potential of CD8 T cells leading to relative DEX resistance. Upon exposure to RUX, this apoptotic potential is restored, thereby sensitizing CD8 T cells to DEX-induced apoptosis in vitro and significantly reducing tissue immunopathology and HLH disease manifestations in vivo. Our findings provide rationale for combining DEX and RUX to enhance the lymphotoxic effects of DEX and thus improve the outcomes for patients with HLH and related CSS.
Topics: Animals; Apoptosis; CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Cytokines; Dexamethasone; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Interleukin-2; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Janus Kinases; Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis; Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic; Mice; Mice, Inbred C57BL; Nitriles; Perforin; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; STAT5 Transcription Factor; Signal Transduction; Specific Pathogen-Free Organisms
PubMed: 32530039
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2020006075 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella, using a vaccine with the BRD2 strain which is only used in China, is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Topics: Chickenpox; Child; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella
PubMed: 34806766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Autistic Disorder; Chickenpox Vaccine; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Crohn Disease; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic; Rubella; Seizures, Febrile; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 32309885
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub4 -
Chinese Clinical Oncology Jun 2015Leptomeningeal dissemination of tumor cells, also referred to as neoplastic meningitis, is most frequently seen in patients with late-stage cancer and mostly associated... (Review)
Review
Leptomeningeal dissemination of tumor cells, also referred to as neoplastic meningitis, is most frequently seen in patients with late-stage cancer and mostly associated with a poor prognosis. Basically, neoplastic meningitis may affect all patients with a malignant tumor but is most common in patients affected by lung cancer, breast carcinoma, melanoma or hematologic neoplasms such as lymphoma and leukemia. Controlled clinical trials are largely lacking which results in various non-standardized treatment regimens. The presence of solid tumor manifestations in the CNS as well as the extracranial tumor load defines the most appropriate treatment approach. Radiation therapy, systemic chemotherapy and intrathecal treatment must be considered. For each patient, the individual situation needs to be carefully evaluated to determine the potential benefit as well as putative side effects associated with any therapy. A moderate survival benefit and particularly relief from pain and neurological deficits are the main treatment goals. Here, we summarize the management of patients with neoplastic meningitis and review the available treatment options.
Topics: Animals; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Meningeal Carcinomatosis; Meningitis; Neuroimaging; Patient Selection; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26112812
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2015.05.02 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... Jan 2017Leukemic and lymphomatous meningitis is a major presentation of primary or secondary central nervous system (CNS) involvement by aggressive lymphomas or acute leukemia. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leukemic and lymphomatous meningitis is a major presentation of primary or secondary central nervous system (CNS) involvement by aggressive lymphomas or acute leukemia.
METHODS
The medical literature and ongoing clinical trials were reviewed on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, and treatment of leukemic and lymphomatous meningitis.
RESULTS
Treatment for secondary leukemic and lymphomatous meningitis remains unsatisfactory, and efforts should be made to prevent and treat subclinical disease. Intrathecal and systemic chemotherapy remain the main therapeutic approaches for this disease. Outcomes have improved in patients with primary CNS lymphoma and meningeal involvement.
CONCLUSIONS
Appropriate selection of patients at high risk for leukemic and lymphomatous meningitis is important so that preventive strategies can decrease the incidence of this complication of leukemia and lymphoma. Use of chemotherapy agents that cross the blood-brain barrier and the adoption of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have increased the proportion of patients whose primary disease is cured.
Topics: Disease Management; Humans; Leukemia; Lymphoma; Meningitis; Prognosis
PubMed: 28178710
DOI: 10.1177/107327481702400105 -
Blood Jul 1994The prevention of meningeal leukemia has long been a keystone in its cure. The need was recognized when it became apparent in the 1950s and 1960s that meningeal relapse... (Review)
Review
The prevention of meningeal leukemia has long been a keystone in its cure. The need was recognized when it became apparent in the 1950s and 1960s that meningeal relapse heralded hematologic relapse and a fatal course and that its incidence increased as systemic chemotherapy became more effective in controlling hematologic and visceral leukemia. Evasion of a biologic safety net, the blood-CSF barrier, is required to prevent meningeal leukemia. Three methods are used: meningeal radiotherapy, intrathecal administration of antileukemia drugs, and high-dosage intravenous antileukemia drugs. Recent and current clinical studies reflect a continuing dialogue about which methods are preferable and under what circumstances. For prevention of meningeal leukemia, extended intrathecal therapy and intensive systemic chemotherapy appear to be as effective as radiotherapy for most patients. For treatment of overt meningeal leukemia, meningeal radiotherapy may be necessary. However, its administration compromises subsequent systemic chemotherapy so that delay may be advisable to allow intensive systemic chemotherapy for control of concurrent hematologic and visceral leukemia, whether clinically evident or not. For patients with meningeal leukemia at diagnosis, cranial irradiation may be delayed or possibly omitted if evidence of disease is minimal and intrathecal and systemic chemotherapy are intensive. For those who develop meningeal leukemia while on therapy or after its completion, cranial or craniospinal irradiation is probably required as well as intensive intrathecal and systemic chemotherapy. Hopefully, current and future studies will dispel the uncertainties and better quantitate risks and benefits of alternative methods. Whatever method is used, careful attention to technical details is required to assure optimal efficacy at the least possible expense in immediate toxicity and late sequelae.
Topics: Child; Humans; Leukemia; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Leukemic Infiltration; Meninges; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma
PubMed: 8025264
DOI: No ID Found