Enhancing predicted efficacy of tumor treating fields therapy of glioblastoma using targeted surgical craniectomy: A computer modeling study

OBJECTIVE:The present work proposes a new clinical approach to TTFields therapy of glioblastoma. The approach combines targeted surgical skull removal (craniectomy) with TTFields therapy to enhance the induced electrical field in the underlying tumor tissue. Using computer simulations, we explore the potential of the intervention to improve the clinical efficacy of TTFields therapy of brain cancer. METHODS:We used finite element analysis to calculate the electrical field distribution in realistic head models based on MRI data from two patients: One with left cortical/subcortical glioblastoma and one with deeply seated right thalamic anaplastic astrocytoma. Field strength was assessed in the tumor regions before and after virtual removal of bone areas of varying shape and size (10 to 100 mm) immediately above the tumor. Field strength was evaluated before and after tumor resection to assess realistic clinical scenarios. RESULTS:For the superficial tumor, removal of a standard craniotomy bone flap increased the electrical field strength by 60-70% in the tumor. The percentage of tissue in expected growth arrest or regression was increased from negligible values to 30-50%. The observed effects were highly focal and targeted at the regions of pathology underlying the craniectomy. No significant changes were observed in surrounding healthy tissues. Median field strengths in tumor tissue increased with increasing craniectomy diameter up to 50-70 mm. Multiple smaller burr holes were more efficient than single craniectomies of equivalent area. Craniectomy caused no significant field enhancement in the deeply seated tumor, but rather a focal enhancement in the brain tissue underlying the skull defect. CONCLUSIONS:Our results provide theoretical evidence that small and clinically feasible craniectomies may provide significant enhancement of TTFields intensity in cerebral hemispheric tumors without severely compromising brain protection or causing unacceptable heating in healthy tissues. A clinical trial is being planned to validate safety and efficacy

Importance of electrode position for the distribution of tumor treating fields (TTFields) in a human brain. Identification of effective layouts through systematic analysis of array positions for multiple tumor locations

<div><p>Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a new modality used for the treatment of glioblastoma. It is based on antineoplastic low-intensity electric fields induced by two pairs of electrode arrays placed on the patient’s scalp. The layout of the arrays greatly impacts the intensity (dose) of TTFields in the pathology. The present study systematically characterizes the impact of array position on the TTFields distribution calculated in a realistic human head model using finite element methods. We investigate systematic rotations of arrays around a central craniocaudal axis of the head and identify optimal layouts for a large range of (nineteen) different frontoparietal tumor positions. In addition, we present comprehensive graphical representations and animations to support the users’ understanding of TTFields. For most tumors, we identified two optimal array positions. These positions varied with the translation of the tumor in the anterior-posterior direction but not in the left-right direction. The two optimal directions were oriented approximately orthogonally and when combining two pairs of orthogonal arrays, equivalent to clinical TTFields therapy, we correspondingly found a single optimum position. In most cases, an oblique layout with the fields oriented at forty-five degrees to the sagittal plane was superior to the commonly used anterior-posterior and left-right combinations of arrays. The oblique configuration may be used as an effective and viable configuration for most frontoparietal tumors. Our results may be applied to assist clinical decision-making in various challenging situations associated with TTFields. This includes situations in which circumstances, such as therapy-induced skin rash, scar tissue or shunt therapy, etc., require layouts alternative to the prescribed. More accurate distributions should, however, be based on patient-specific models. Future work is needed to assess the robustness of the presented results towards variations in conductivity.</p></div

Examining the Duration of Carryover Effect in Patients With Chronic Pain Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation (EChO Study):An Open, Interventional, Investigator-Initiated, International Multicenter Study

Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for severe, chronic, neuropathic pain. It is based on one to two lead(s) implanted in the epidural space, stimulating the dorsal column. It has long been assumed that when deactivating SCS, there is a variable interval before the patient perceives the return of the pain, a phenomenon often termed echo or carryover effect. Although the carryover effect has been problematized as a source of error in crossover studies, no experimental investigation of the effect has been published. This open, prospective, international multicenter study aimed to systematically document, quantify, and investigate the carryover effect in SCS. Materials and Methods: Eligible patients with a beneficial effect from their SCS treatment were instructed to deactivate their SCS device in a home setting and to reactivate it when their pain returned. The primary outcome was duration of carryover time defined as the time interval from deactivation to reactivation. Central clinical parameters (age, sex, indication for SCS, SCS treatment details, pain score) were registered and correlated with carryover time using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis) for categorical data and linear regression for continuous data. Results: In total, 158 patients were included in the analyses. A median carryover time of five hours was found (interquartile range 2.5;21 hours). Back pain as primary indication for SCS, high-frequency stimulation, and higher pain score at the time of deactivation were correlated with longer carryover time. Conclusions: This study confirms the existence of the carryover effect and indicates a remarkably high degree of interindividual variation. The results suggest that the magnitude of carryover may be correlated to the nature of the pain condition and possibly stimulation paradigms. Clinical Trial Registration: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03386058.</p