Whole brain radiotherapy after local treatment of brain metastases in melanoma patients - a randomised phase III trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cerebral metastases are a common cause of death in patients with melanoma. Systemic drug treatment of these metastases is rarely effective, and where possible surgical resection and/or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are the preferred treatment options. Treatment with adjuvant whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) following neurosurgery and/or SRS is controversial. Proponents of WBRT report prolongation of intracranial control with reduced neurological events and better palliation. Opponents state melanoma is radioresistant; that WBRT yields no survival benefit and may impair neurocognitive function. These opinions are based largely on studies in other tumour types in which assessment of neurocognitive function has been incomplete.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This trial is an international, prospective multi-centre, open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial comparing WBRT to observation following local treatment of intracranial melanoma metastases with surgery and/or SRS. Patients aged 18 years or older with 1-3 brain metastases excised and/or stereotactically irradiated and an ECOG status of 0-2 are eligible. Patients with leptomeningeal disease, or who have had previous WBRT or localised treatment for brain metastases are ineligible. WBRT prescription is at least 30 Gy in 10 fractions commenced within 8 weeks of surgery and/or SRS. Randomisation is stratified by the number of cerebral metastases, presence or absence of extracranial disease, treatment centre, sex, radiotherapy dose and patient age. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with distant intracranial failure as determined by MRI assessment at 12 months. Secondary end points include: survival, quality of life, performance status and neurocognitive function.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Accrual to previous trials for patients with brain metastases has been difficult, mainly due to referral bias for or against WBRT. This trial should provide the evidence that is currently lacking in treatment decision-making for patients with melanoma brain metastases. The trial is conducted by the Australia and New Zealand Melanoma Trials Group (ANZMTG-study 01-07), and the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) but international participation is encouraged. Twelve sites are open to date with 43 patients randomised as of the 31st March 2011. The target accrual is 200 patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12607000512426.aspx">ACTRN12607000512426</a></p

Whole brain radiotherapy with radiosensitizer for brain metastases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To study the efficacy of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with radiosensitizer in comparison with WBRT alone for patients with brain metastases in terms of overall survival, disease progression, response to treatment and adverse effects of treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was performed in order to compare WBRT with radiosensitizer for brain metastases and WBRT alone. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases, in addition to Trial registers, bibliographic databases, and recent issues of relevant journals were researched. Significant reports were reviewed by two reviewers independently.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 8 RCTs, yielding 2317 patients were analyzed. Pooled results from this 8 RCTs of WBRT with radiosensitizer have not shown a meaningful improvement on overall survival compared to WBRT alone OR = 1.03 (95% CI0.84–1.25, p = 0.77). Also, there was no difference in local brain tumor response OR = 0.8(95% CI 0.5 – 1.03) and brain tumor progression (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.9 – 1.3) when the two arms were compared.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our data show that WBRT with the following radiosentizers (ionidamine, metronidazole, misonodazole, motexafin gadolinium, BUdr, efaproxiral, thalidomide), have not improved significatively the overall survival, local control and tumor response compared to WBRT alone for brain metastases. However, 2 of them, motexafin- gadolinium and efaproxiral have been shown in recent publications (lung and breast) to have positive action in lung and breast carcinoma brain metastases in association with WBRT.</p

Brain metastases from solid tumors: disease outcome according to type of treatment and therapeutic resources of the treating center

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate the therapeutic strategies commonly employed in the clinic for the management of brain metastases (BMs) and to correlate disease outcome with type of treatment and therapeutic resources available at the treating center.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Four Cancer centres participated to the survey. Data were collected through a questionnaire filled in by one physician for each centre.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Clinical data regarding 290 cancer patients with BMs from solid tumors were collected. Median age was 59 and 59% of patients had ≤ 3 brain metastases. A local approach (surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery) was adopted in 31% of patients. The local approach demonstrated to be superior in terms of survival compared to the regional/systemic approach (whole brain radiotherapy and chemotherapy, p = <.0001 for survival at 2 years). In the multivariate analysis local treatment was an independent prognostic factor for survival. When patients were divided into 2 groups whether they were treated in centers where local approaches were available or not (group A vs group B respectively, 58% of patients with ≤ 3 BMs in both cohorts), more patients in group A received local strategies although no difference in time to brain progression at 1 year was observed between the two groups of patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In clinical practice, local strategies should be integrated in the management of brain metastases. Proper selection of patients who are candidate to local treatments is of crucial importance.</p

The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS + or - WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (\u3e3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (\u3e1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below

Recent progress towards development of effective systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of malignant brain tumors

Systemic chemotherapy has been relatively ineffective in the treatment of malignant brain tumors even though systemic chemotherapy drugs are small molecules that can readily extravasate across the porous blood-brain tumor barrier of malignant brain tumor microvasculature. Small molecule systemic chemotherapy drugs maintain peak blood concentrations for only minutes, and therefore, do not accumulate to therapeutic concentrations within individual brain tumor cells. The physiologic upper limit of pore size in the blood-brain tumor barrier of malignant brain tumor microvasculature is approximately 12 nanometers. Spherical nanoparticles ranging between 7 nm and 10 nm in diameter maintain peak blood concentrations for several hours and are sufficiently smaller than the 12 nm physiologic upper limit of pore size in the blood-brain tumor barrier to accumulate to therapeutic concentrations within individual brain tumor cells. Therefore, nanoparticles bearing chemotherapy that are within the 7 to 10 nm size range can be used to deliver therapeutic concentrations of small molecule chemotherapy drugs across the blood-brain tumor barrier into individual brain tumor cells. The initial therapeutic efficacy of the Gd-G5-doxorubicin dendrimer, an imageable nanoparticle bearing chemotherapy within the 7 to 10 nm size range, has been demonstrated in the orthotopic RG-2 rodent malignant glioma model. Herein I discuss this novel strategy to improve the effectiveness of systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of malignant brain tumors and the therapeutic implications thereof

Intraoperative ultrasonography for presumed brain metastases: a case series study

Brain metastases (BM) are one of the most common intracranial tumors and surgical treatment can improve both the functional outcomes and patient survival, particularly when systemic disease is controlled. Image-guided BM resection using intraoperative exams, such as intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS), can lead to better surgical results. METHODS: To evaluate the use of IOUS for BM resection, 20 consecutives patients were operated using IOUS to locate tumors, identify their anatomical relationships and surgical cavity after resection. Technical difficulties, complications, recurrence and survival rates were noted. RESULTS: IOUS proved effective for locating, determining borders and defining the anatomical relationships of BM, as well as to identify incomplete tumor resection. No complications related to IOUS were seen. CONCLUSION: IOUS is a practical supporting method for the resection of BM, but further studies comparing this method with other intraoperative exams are needed to evaluate its actual contribution and reliability