Search

Background: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Therapy is an FDA-approved therapy in the first line and recurrent setting for glioblastoma. Despite Phase 3 evidence showing improved survival with TTFields, it is not uniformly utilized. We aimed to examine patient and clinician views of TTFields and factors shaping utilization of TTFields through a unique research partnership with medical neuro oncology and medical social sciences., Methods: Adult glioblastoma patients who were offered TTFields at a tertiary care academic hospital were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their decision to use or not use TTFields. Clinicians who prescribe TTFields were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about TTFields., Results: Interviews were completed with 40 patients with a mean age of 53 years; 92.5% were white and 60% were male. Participants who decided against TTFields stated that head shaving, appearing sick, and inconvenience of wearing/carrying the device most influenced their decision. The most influential factors for use of TTFields were the efficacy of the device and their clinician's opinion. Clinicians (N = 9) stated that TTFields was a good option for glioblastoma patients, but some noted that their patients should consider the burdens and benefits of TTFields as it may not be the desired choice for all patients., Conclusions: This is the first study to examine patient decision making for TTFields. Findings suggest that clinician support and efficacy data are among the key decision-making factors. Properly understanding the path to patients' decision making is crucial in optimizing the use of TTFields and other therapeutic decisions for glioblastoma patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

For MR-guided radiation therapy treatment planning, an MRI and CT of the intended treatment site are typically acquired. Patients' prior treatments or procedures can cause image artifacts in one or both scans, which may impact treatment planning or the radiation dose calculation. In this case report, a patient with several previous transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) procedures was planned for radiation therapy on a low-field MR-linac, and the impact of residual iodinated oil on the radiation dose calculation and MR-guided adaptive workflow was evaluated., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2023, Crosby et al.)

Background: The role for radiotherapy or surgery in the upfront management of brain metastases (BrM) in epidermal growth factor receptor mutant ( EGFR m) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase translocation positive ( ALK +) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is uncertain because of a lack of prospective evidence supporting tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy. Further understanding of practice heterogeneity is necessary to guide collaborative efforts in establishing guideline recommendations., Methods: We conducted an international survey among medical (MO), clinical (CO), and radiation oncologists (RO), as well as neurosurgeons (NS), of treatment recommendations for asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions) EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC patients according to specific clinical scenarios. We grouped and compared treatment recommendations according to specialty. Responses were summarized using counts and percentages and analyzed using the Fisher exact test., Results: A total of 449 surveys were included in the final analysis: 48 CO, 85 MO, 60 NS, and 256 RO. MO and CO were significantly more likely than RO and NS to recommend first-line TKI monotherapy, regardless of the number and/or size of asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions). Radiotherapy in addition to TKI as first-line management was preferred by all specialties for patients with ≥4 BrM. NS recommended surgical resection more often than other specialties for BrM measuring >2 cm., Conclusions: Recommendations for the management of BrM from EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC vary significantly according to oncology sub-specialties. Development of multidisciplinary guidelines and further research on establishing optimal treatment strategies is warranted., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-22-697/coif). NM serves on the advisory boards of Pfizer, Novartis, and Seagen. NM reports honoraria from Takeda Oncology and Astra Zeneca. FYM reports consulting fees from Elekta, and honoraria from Astra Zeneca and IASLC; grants and contracts from CTAQ Queen’s University. JCHY reports participation in advisory board with Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, JNJ, Puma Technology, Gilead, and GSK; grant support with Astra Zeneca. JHL reports participation in advisory boards with Novartis, Takeda, Eli Lilly, and Astra Zeneca; consulting fees from Pfizer, and payments or honoraria from Bayer, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim. NP reports research support from Pfizer, Bayer, and Roche; Honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Pieere-Faber; Advisory board participation from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Merck, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, AllVascular, Beigene, Novartis. PK reports financial compensation from Medexus Pharmaceuticals Canada. MD reports consulting fees from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Eisai, and Merck; honoraria from Roche and Astra Zeneca. NBL reports research support from Amgen, Array, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Guardant Health, Takeda; Honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: STK11 mutation ( STK11 m ) in patients (pts) with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with inferior survival and poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The significance of STK11 m in stage III NSCLC pts treated with concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) with or without consolidation ICI is unknown., Methods: Stage III NSCLC patients who received CCRT and had known STK11 mutational status were included in this retrospective study. The data on the STK11 m pts were collected from 4 cancer institutions. A cohort of pts with wild type STK11 ( STK11 w ) from the University of Iowa served as a comparison group. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were collected. Cox regression models were used to explore the effect of STK11 mutation on survival., Results: 75 pts with stage III NSCLC who had known STK11 mutational status were identified. 16/75 (21%) had STK11 m . 5/16 with STK11 m did not receive CCRT so they were excluded from the analysis. The clinical and demographic characteristics for the 11 STK11 m and 59 STK11 w pts were not statistically different ( STK11 m vs. STK11 w ): mean age: 57 vs. 64 yrs, non-squamous histology: 8/11 (73%) vs. 37/59 (63%), KRAS mutation: 3/11 (27%) vs. 11/59 (19%), TP53 mutation: 6/11 (55%) vs. 15/59 (25%), PD-L1 ≥50%: 1/8 (13%) vs. 10/32 (31%), and consolidation ICI 6/11 (55%) vs. 17/59 (29%). Regarding the 6 STK11 m pts who received ICI (4 pembrolizumab, 2 durvalumab), the median number of ICI infusions was 8 (range, 3-17) vs. 6 (range, 1-25) in the 17 pts with STK11 w who received ICI (durvalumab). After adjusting for performance status and cancer stage, multivariable analysis showed that progression free survival (PFS) for the STK11 m pts was significantly worse than STK11 w pts (HR =2.25; 95% CI, 1.03-4.88, P=0.04), whereas overall survival (OS) showed no significant difference for STK11 m vs. STK11 w patients (HR 1.47, 95% CI, 0.49-4.38, P=0.49)., Conclusions: In stage III NSCLC patients who received CCRT, STK11 m was associated with worse PFS compared to STK11 w . Larger studies are needed to further explore the prognostic implications of STK11 m in stage III NSCLC and whether ICI impacts survival for this subgroup., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-177). MF serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Lung Cancer Research from Sep 2019 to Sep 2021. TK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca for consulting and advisory board, and personal fees AstraZeneca, OncLive, and Targeted Oncology for speaking. NHH’s institution received grant support from BMS, Genentech, Merck on studies that in which he is the PI, and is the medical writer for UptoDate and served on a DSMB for a study sponsored by Beyond Spring. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Background: Progress in extending the survival of glioblastoma (GBM) patients has been slow. A better understanding of why patient survival remains poor is critical to developing new strategies. Postmortem studies on GBM can shed light on why patients are dying., Methods: The brains of 33 GBM patients were autopsied and examined for gross and microscopic abnormalities. Clinical-pathologic correlations were accomplished through detailed chart reviews. Data were compared with older published autopsy GBM studies that predated newer treatment strategies, such as more extensive surgical resection and adjuvant temozolomide., Results: In older GBM autopsy series, mass effect was observed in 72% of brains, with herniation in 50% of all cases. Infiltration of tumor into the brainstem was noted in only 21% of those older cases. In the current series, only 10 of 33 (30%) GBMs showed mass effect (P = 0.0003), and only 1 (3%) showed herniation (P < 0.0001). However, extensive GBM infiltration of the brainstem was present in 22 cases (67%, P < 0.0001), with accompanying destruction of the pons and white matter tracts. There was a direct correlation between longer median patient survival and the presence of brainstem infiltration (16.1 mo in brainstem-invaded cases vs 9.0 mo in cases lacking extensive brainstem involvement; P = 0.0003)., Conclusions: With improving care, severe mass effect appears to be less common in GBM patients today, whereas dissemination, including life-threatening brainstem invasion, is now more pronounced. This has major implications regarding preclinical GBM models, as well as the design of clinical trials aimed at further improving patient survival., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumor. Important advances are occurring in meningioma research. These are expected to accelerate, potentially leading to impactful changes on the management of meningiomas in the near and medium term. This review will cover the histo- and molecular pathology of meningiomas, including recent 2016 updates to the WHO classification of CNS tumors. We will discuss clinical and radiographic presentation and therapeutic management. Surgery and radiotherapy, the two longstanding primary therapeutic modalities, will be discussed at length. In addition, data from prior and ongoing investigations of other treatment modalities, including systemic and targeted therapies, will be covered. This review will quickly update the reader on the contemporary management and future directions in meningiomas. [Formula: see text].