The role of steroids in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

Do steroids improve neurologic symptoms in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared to no treatment? If steroids are given, what dose should be used? Comparisons include: (1) steroid therapy versus none. (2) comparison of different doses of steroid therapy. Target population These recommendations apply to adults diagnosed with brain metastases. Recommendations Steroid therapy versus no steroid therapy Asymptomatic brain metastases patients without mass effect Insufficient evidence exists to make a treatment recommendation for this clinical scenario. Brain metastases patients with mild symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. It is recommended for patients who are symptomatic from metastatic disease to the brain that a starting dose of 4–8 mg/day of dexamethasone be considered. Brain metastases patients with moderate to severe symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. If patients exhibit severe symptoms consistent with increased intracranial pressure, it is recommended that higher doses such as 16 mg/day or more be considered. Choice of Steroid Level 3 If corticosteroids are given, dexamethasone is the best drug choice given the available evidence. Duration of Corticosteroid Administration Level 3 Corticosteroids, if given, should be tapered slowly over a 2 week time period, or longer in symptomatic patients, based upon an individualized treatment regimen and a full understanding of the long-term sequelae of corticosteroid therapy. Given the very limited number of studies (two) which met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, these are the only recommendations that can be offered based on this methodology. Please see “Discussion” and “Summary” section for additional details

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

TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed brain metastases; however, the recommendation below does not apply to the exquisitely chemosensitive tumors, such as germinomas metastatic to the brain. RECOMMENDATION: Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT)? Level 1 Routine use of chemotherapy following WBRT for brain metastases has not been shown to increase survival and is not recommended. Four class I studies examined the role of carboplatin, chloroethylnitrosoureas, tegafur and temozolomide, and all resulted in no survival benefit. Two caveats are provided in order to allow the treating physician to individualize decision-making: First, the majority of the data are limited to non small cell lung (NSCLC) and breast cancer; therefore, in other tumor histologies, the possibility of clinical benefit cannot be absolutely ruled out. Second, the addition of chemotherapy to WBRT improved response rates in some, but not all trials; response rate was not the primary endpoint in most of these trials and end-point assessment was non-centralized, non-blinded, and post-hoc. Enrollment in chemotherapy-related clinical trials is encouraged

Comprehensive Analysis of MGMT Promoter Methylation: Correlation with MGMT Expression and Clinical Response in GBM

O6-methylguanine DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation has been identified as a potential prognostic marker for glioblastoma patients. The relationship between the exact site of promoter methylation and its effect on gene silencing, and the patient's subsequent response to therapy, is still being defined. The aim of this study was to comprehensively characterize cytosine-guanine (CpG) dinucleotide methylation across the entire MGMT promoter and to correlate individual CpG site methylation patterns to mRNA expression, protein expression, and progression-free survival. To best identify the specific MGMT promoter region most predictive of gene silencing and response to therapy, we determined the methylation status of all 97 CpG sites in the MGMT promoter in tumor samples from 70 GBM patients using quantitative bisulfite sequencing. We next identified the CpG site specific and regional methylation patterns most predictive of gene silencing and improved progression-free survival. Using this data, we propose a new classification scheme utilizing methylation data from across the entire promoter and show that an analysis based on this approach, which we call 3R classification, is predictive of progression-free survival (HR  = 5.23, 95% CI [2.089–13.097], p<0.0001). To adapt this approach to the clinical setting, we used a methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA) test based on the 3R classification and show that this test is both feasible in the clinical setting and predictive of progression free survival (HR  = 3.076, 95% CI [1.301–7.27], p = 0.007). We discuss the potential advantages of a test based on this promoter-wide analysis and compare it to the commonly used methylation-specific PCR test. Further prospective validation of these two methods in a large independent patient cohort will be needed to confirm the added value of promoter wide analysis of MGMT methylation in the clinical setting

The role of retreatment in the management of recurrent/progressive brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the use of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases? TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously been treated with WBRT, surgical resection and/or radiosurgery. Recurrent/progressive brain metastases are defined as metastases that recur/progress anywhere in the brain (original and/or non-original sites) after initial therapy. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 Since there is insufficient evidence to make definitive treatment recommendations in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases, treatment should be individualized based on a patient\u27s functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged. In this context, the following can be recommended depending on a patient\u27s specific condition: no further treatment (supportive care), re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy. Question If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes? No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question

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

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Treatment of Adults With Metastatic Brain Tumors: Executive Summary

BACKGROUND: The Congress of Neurological Surgeons systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice parameter guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors was first published in 2010. Because of the time elapsed since that publication, an update of this set of guidelines based on literature published since is now indicated. OBJECTIVE: To establish the best evidence-based management of metastatic brain tumors over all commonly used diagnostic and treatment modalities in regularly encountered clinical situations. METHODS: Literature searches regarding management of metastatic brain tumors with whole brain radiation therapy, surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery, chemotherapy, prophylactic anticonvulsants, steroids, instances of multiple brain metastases, and emerging and investigational therapies were carried out to answer questions designed by consensus of a multidisciplinary writing group. RESULTS: Recommendations were created and their strength linked to the quality of the literature data available thus creating an evidence-based guideline. Importantly, shortcomings and biases to the literature data are brought out so as to provide guidance for future investigation and improvements in the management of patients with metastatic brain tumors. CONCLUSION: This series of guidelines was constructed to assess the most current and clinically relevant evidence for management of metastatic brain tumors. They set a benchmark regarding the current evidence base for this management while also highlighting important key areas for future basic and clinical research, particularly on those topics for which no recommendations could be formulated. The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_1

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Treatment of Adults With Vestibular Schwannomas: Executive Summary

BACKGROUND: Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are uncommon lesions that are a substantial challenge to the neurosurgeons, otologists, and radiation oncologists who undertake their clinical management. A starting point to improving the current knowledge is to define the benchmarks of the current research studying VS management using evidence-based techniques in order to allow meaningful points of departure for future scientific and clinical research. OBJECTIVE: To establish the best evidence-based management of VS, including initial otologic evaluation, imaging diagnosis, use of surgical techniques, assessment of tumor pathology, and the administration of radiation therapy. METHODS: Multidisciplinary writing groups were identified to design questions, literature searches, and collection and classification of relevant findings. This information was then translated to recommendations based on the strength of the available literature. RESULTS: This guideline series yielded some level 2 recommendations and a greater number of level 3 recommendations directed at the management of VS. Importantly, in some cases, a number of well-designed questions and subsequent searches did not yield information that allowed creation of a meaningful and justifiable recommendation. CONCLUSION: This series of guidelines was constructed to assess the most current and clinically relevant evidence for the management of VS. They set a benchmark regarding the current evidence base for this type of tumor while also highlighting important key areas for future basic and clinical research, particularly on those topics for which no recommendations could be formulated.  The full guidelines can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-management-patients-vestibular-schwannoma