Background Despite current best treatment options, a glioblastoma almost inevitably recurs after primary treatment. However, in the absence of clear evidence, current guidelines on recurrent... Show moreBackground Despite current best treatment options, a glioblastoma almost inevitably recurs after primary treatment. However, in the absence of clear evidence, current guidelines on recurrent glioblastoma are not well-defined. Re-resection is one of the possible treatment modalities, though it can be challenging to identify those patients who will benefit. Therefore, treatment decisions are made based on multidisciplinary discussions. This study aimed to investigate the current practice variation between neuro-oncology specialists. Methods In this nationwide study among Dutch neuro-oncology specialists, we surveyed possible practice variation. Via an online survey, 4 anonymized recurrent glioblastoma cases were presented to neurosurgeons, neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists in The Netherlands using a standardized questionnaire on whether and why they would recommend a re-resection or not. The results were used to provide a qualitative analysis of the current practice in The Netherlands. Results The survey was filled out by 56 respondents, of which 15 (27%) were neurosurgeons, 26 (46%) neuro-oncologists, 2 (4%) medical oncologists, and 13 (23%) radiation oncologists. In 2 of the 4 cases, there appeared to be clinical equipoise. Overall, neurosurgeons tended to recommend re-resection more frequently compared to the other specialists. Neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists showed opposite recommendations in 2 cases. Conclusions This study showed that re-resection of recurrent glioblastoma is subject to practice variation both between and within neuro-oncology specialties. In the absence of unambiguous guidelines, we observed a relationship between preferred practice and specialty. Reduction of this practice variation is important; to achieve this, adequate prospective studies are essential. Show less
Background Glioblastoma (GBM), the most common glial primary brain tumour, is without exception lethal. Every year approximately 600 patients are diagnosed with this heterogeneous disease in The... Show moreBackground Glioblastoma (GBM), the most common glial primary brain tumour, is without exception lethal. Every year approximately 600 patients are diagnosed with this heterogeneous disease in The Netherlands. Despite neurosurgery, chemo -and radiation therapy, these tumours inevitably recur. Currently, there is no gold standard at time of recurrence and treatment options are limited. Unfortunately, the results of dedicated trials with new drugs have been very disappointing. The goal of the project is to obtain the evidence for changing standard of care (SOC) procedures to include whole genome sequencing (WGS) and consequently adapt care guidelines for this specific patient group with very poor prognosis by offering optimal and timely benefit from novel therapies, even in the absence of traditional registration trials for this small volume cancer indication. Methods The GLOW study is a prospective diagnostic cohort study executed through collaboration of the Hartwig Medical Foundation (Hartwig, a non-profit organisation) and twelve Dutch centers that perform neurosurgery and/or treat GBM patients. A total of 200 patients with a first recurrence of a glioblastoma will be included. Dual primary endpoint is the percentage of patients who receive targeted therapy based on the WGS report and overall survival. Secondary endpoints include WGS report success rate and number of targeted treatments available based on WGS reports and number of patients starting a treatment in presence of an actionable variant. At recurrence, study participants will undergo SOC neurosurgical resection. Tumour material will then, together with a blood sample, be sent to Hartwig where it will be analysed by WGS. A diagnostic report with therapy guidance, including potential matching off-label drugs and available clinical trials will then be sent back to the treating physician for discussing of the results in molecular tumour boards and targeted treatment decision making. Discussion The GLOW study aims to provide the scientific evidence for changing the SOC diagnostics for patients with a recurrent glioblastoma by investigating complete genome diagnostics to maximize treatment options for this patient group. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05186064. Show less
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... Show moreBackground': 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. Show less
Opijnen, M.P. van; Meer, P.B. van der; Dirven, L.; Fiocco, M.; Kouwenhoven, M.C.M.; Bent, M.J. van den; ... ; Koekkoek, J.A.F. 2021
Purpose Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently... Show morePurpose Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide. Methods In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2-4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity. Results We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26-51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20-41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46-1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide. Conclusion Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy. Show less
Opijnen, M.P. van; Meer, P.B. van der; Dirven, L.; Fiocco, M.; Kouwenhoven, M.C.M.; Bent, M.J. van den; ... ; Koekkoek, J.A.F. 2021
Purpose Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently... Show morePurpose Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide. Methods In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2-4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity. Results We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26-51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20-41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46-1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide. Conclusion Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy. Show less
