Search

Background: Withdrawal of antiseizure medication treatment (ASM) can be considered after completion of antitumour treatment in glioma patients who no longer suffer from seizures. We compared the risk for recurrent seizures after ASM withdrawal between patients with short-term, medium-term versus long-term seizure freedom after antitumour treatment. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, the primary outcome was time to recurrent seizure, from the starting date of no ASM treatment up to 36 months follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the effect of risk factors on time to recurrent seizure. Stratification was done with information known at baseline. Short-term seizure freedom was defined as ≥ 3 months, but < 12 months; medium-term as 12–24 months; and long-term as ≥ 24 months seizure freedom from the date of last antitumour treatment. Results: This study comprised of 109 patients; 31% (34/109) were in the short-term, 29% (32/109) in the medium-term, and 39% (43/109) in the long-term group. A recurrent seizure was experienced by 47% (16/34) of the patients in the short-term, 31% (10/32) in the medium-term, and 44% (19/43) in the long-term group. Seizure recurrence risk was similar between patients in the short-term group as compared to the medium-term (cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.65 [95%CI = 0.29–1.46]) and long-term group (cause-specific aHR = 1.04 [95%CI = 0.52–2.09]). Conclusions: Seizure recurrence risk is relatively similar between patients with short-term, medium-term, and long-term seizure freedom after completion of antitumour treatment.

Background and ObjectivesApproximately 10% of patients with glioma with epilepsy need antiseizure medication (ASM) triple therapy due to refractory epilepsy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether levetiracetam combined with valproic acid and clobazam (LEV + VPA + CLB), a frequently prescribed triple therapy, has favorable effectiveness compared with other triple therapy combinations in patients with glioma.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective observational cohort study. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of time to treatment failure for any reason, from the start of ASM triple therapy treatment. The secondary outcomes included cumulative incidences of the following: (1) time to treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures; (2) time to treatment failure due to adverse effects; and (3) time to recurrent seizures. Patients were followed up for a maximum duration of 36 months.ResultsOf 1,435 patients in the original cohort, 90 patients received ASM triple therapy after second-line ASM treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures. LEV + VPA + CLB was prescribed to 48% (43/90) and other ASM triple therapy to 52% (47/90) of patients. The cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason of LEV + VPA + CLB did not statistically significantly differ from that of other ASM triple therapy combinations (12 months: 47% [95% CI 31%-62%] vs 42% [95% CI 27%-56%], p = 0.892). No statistically significant differences for treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (12 months: 12% [95% CI 4%-25%] vs 18% [95% CI 8%-30%], p = 0.445), adverse effects (12 months: 22% [95% CI 11%-36%] vs 15% [95% CI 7%-27%], p = 0.446), or recurrent seizures (1 month: 65% [95% CI 48%-78%] vs 63% [95% CI 47%-75%], p = 0.911) were found.DiscussionLEV + VPA + CLB might show equivalent effectiveness compared with other ASM triple therapy combinations in patients with glioma.Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with glio

Glioma patients carry the burden of having both a progressive neurological disease and cancer, and may face a variety of symptoms, including depression and anxiety. These symptoms are highly prevalent in glioma patients (median point prevalence ranging from 16-41% for depression and 24-48% for anxiety when assessed by self-report questionnaires) and have a major impact on health-related quality of life and even overall survival time. A worse overall survival time for glioma patients with depressive symptoms might be due to tumor progression and/or its supportive treatment causing depressive symptoms, an increased risk of suicide or other (unknown) factors. Much is still unclear about the etiology of depressive and anxiety symptoms in glioma. These psychiatric symptoms often find their cause in a combination of neurophysiological and psychological factors, such as the tumor and/or its treatment. Although these patients have a particular idiosyncrasy, standard treatment guidelines for depressive and anxiety disorders apply, generally recommending psychological and pharmacological treatment. Only a few nonpharmacological trials have been conducted evaluating the efficacy of psychological treatments (eg, a reminiscence therapy-based care program) in this population, which significantly reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms. No pharmacological trials have been conducted in glioma patients specifically. More well-designed trials evaluating the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments for depressive and anxiety disorders in glioma are urgently needed to successfully treat psychiatric symptoms in brain tumor patients and to improve (health-related) quality of life.

Background IDH1/2 wildtype (IDHwt) glioma WHO grade 2 and 3 patients with pTERT mutation and/or EGFR amplification and/or + 7/-10 chromosome gain/loss have a similar overall survival time as IDHwt glioblastoma patients, and are both considered glioblastoma IDHwt according to the WHO 2021 classification. However, differences in seizure onset have been observed. This study aimed to compare the course of epilepsy in the 2 glioblastoma subtypes. Methods We analyzed epilepsy data of an existing cohort including IDHwt histologically lower-grade glioma WHO grade 2 and 3 with molecular glioblastoma-like profile (IDHwt hLGG) and IDHwt glioblastoma patients. Primary outcome was the incidence proportion of epilepsy during the disease course. Secondary outcomes included, among others, onset of epilepsy, number of seizure days, and antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy. Results Out of 254 patients, 78% (50/64) IDHwt hLGG and 68% (129/190) IDHwt glioblastoma patients developed epilepsy during the disease (P = .121). Epilepsy onset before histopathological diagnosis occurred more frequently in IDHwt hLGG compared to IDHwt glioblastoma patients (90% vs 60%, P < .001), with a significantly longer median time to diagnosis (3.5 vs 1.3 months, P < .001). Median total seizure days was also longer for IDHwt hLGG patients (7.0 vs 3.0, P = .005), and they received more often AED polytherapy (32% vs 17%, P = .028). Conclusions Although the incidence proportion of epilepsy during the entire disease course is similar, IDHwt hLGG patients show a significantly higher incidence of epilepsy before diagnosis and a significantly longer median time between first seizure and diagnosis compared to IDHwt glioblastoma patients, indicating a distinct clinical course.

Background: This study aimed at investigating antiepileptic drug (AED) prescription preferences in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) among the European neuro-oncology community, the considerations that play a role when initiating AED treatment, the organization of care, and practices with regard to AED withdrawal. Methods: A digital survey containing 31 questions about prescription preferences of AEDs was set out among members of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO). Results: A total of 198 respondents treating patients with BTRE participated of whom 179 completed the entire survey. Levetiracetam was the first choice in patients with BTRE for almost all respondents (90% [162/181]). Levetiracetam was considered the most effective AED in reducing seizure frequency (72% [131/181]) and having the least adverse effects (48% [87/181]). Common alternatives for levetiracetam as equivalent first choice included lacosamide (33% [59/181]), lamotrigine (22% [40/181]), and valproic acid (21% [38/181]). Most crucial factors to choose a specific AED were potential adverse effects (82% [148/181]) and interactions with antitumor treatments (76% [137/181]). In the majority of patients, neuro-oncologists were involved in the treatment of seizures (73% [132/181])). Other relevant findings were that a minority of respondents ever prescribe AEDs in brain tumor patients without epilepsy solely as prophylaxis (29% [53/181]), but a majority routinely considers complete AED withdrawal in BTRE patients who are seizure-free after antitumor treatment (79% [141/179]). Conclusions: Our results show that among European professionals treating patients with BTRE levetiracetam is considered the first choice AED, with the presumed highest efficacy and least adverse effects.

Background and Objectives About 30% of patients with glioma need an add-on antiseizure medication (ASM) due to uncontrolled seizures on ASM monotherapy. This study aimed to determine whether levetiracetam combined with valproic acid (LEV + VPA), a commonly prescribed duotherapy, is more effective than other duotherapy combinations including either LEV or VPA in patients with glioma. Methods In this multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, treatment failure (i.e., replacement by, addition of, or withdrawal of an ASM) for any reason was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included (1) treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures and (2) treatment failure due to adverse effects. Time to treatment failure was estimated from the moment of ASM duotherapy initiation. Multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to study the association between risk factors and treatment failure. The maximum duration of follow-up was 36 months. Results A total of 1,435 patients were treated with first-line monotherapy LEV or VPA, of which 355 patients received ASM duotherapy after they had treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures on monotherapy. LEV + VPA was prescribed in 66% (236/355) and other ASM duotherapy combinations including LEV or VPA in 34% (119/355) of patients. Patients using other duotherapy vs LEV + VPA had a higher risk of treatment failure for any reason (cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.50 [95% CI 1.07-2.12], p = 0.020), due to uncontrolled seizures (cause-specific aHR 1.73 [95% CI 1.10-2.73], p = 0.018), but not due to adverse effects (cause-specific aHR 0.88 [95% CI 0.47-1.67], p = 0.703). Discussion This observational cohort study suggests that LEV + VPA has better efficacy than other ASM combinations. Similar toxicities were experienced in the 2 groups. Classification of Evidence This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with glioma with

Objective: This study aimed at estimating the cumulative incidence of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment failure of first-line monotherapy levetiracetam vs valproic acid in glioma patients with epilepsy. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, a competing risks model was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from AED treatment initiation, for the two AEDs with death as a competing event. Patients were matched on baseline covariates potentially related to treatment assignment and outcomes of interest according to the nearest neighbor propensity score matching technique. Maximum duration of follow-up was 36 months. Results: In total, 776 patients using levetiracetam and 659 using valproic acid were identified. Matching resulted in two equal groups of 429 patients, with similar covariate distribution. The cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 33% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29%–38%] vs 50% [95% CI 45%–55%]; P <.001). When looking at specific reasons of treatment failure, treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 16% [95% CI 12%–19%] vs 28% [95% CI 23%–32%]; P < 0.001), but no differences were found for treatment failure due to adverse effects (12 months: 14% [95% CI 11%–18%] vs 15% [95% CI 11%–18%]; P =.636). Significance: Our results suggest that levetiracetam may have favorable efficacy compared to valproic acid, whereas level of toxicity seems similar. Therefore, levetiracetam seems to be the preferred choice for first-line AED treatment in patients with glioma.