Adverse long-term effects of brain radiotherapy in adult low-grade glioma patients

Long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for glioma

BACKGROUND

Gliomas are brain tumours arising from glial cells with an annual incidence of 4 to 11 people per 100,000. In this review we focus on gliomas with low aggressive potential in the short term, i.e. low-grade gliomas. Most people with low-grade gliomas are treated with surgery and may receive radiotherapy thereafter. However, there is concern about the possible long-term effects of radiotherapy, especially on neurocognitive functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) compared with no radiotherapy, or different types of radiotherapy, among people with glioma (where 'long-term' is defined as at least two years after diagnosis); and to write a brief economic commentary.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 16 February 2018 and updated the search on 14 November 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018 to identify ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAS). Participants were aged 16 years and older with cerebral glioma other than glioblastoma. We included studies where patients in at least one treatment arm received radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, and where neurocognitive outcomes were assessed two or more years after treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of findings using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes nine studies: seven studies were of low-grade glioma and two were of grade 3 glioma. Altogether 2406 participants were involved but there was high sample attrition and outcome data were available for a minority of people at final study assessments. In seven of the nine studies, participants were recruited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which longer-term follow-up was undertaken in a subset of people that had survived without disease progression. There was moderate to high risk of bias in studies due to lack of blinding and high attrition, and in two observational studies there was high risk of selection bias. Paucity of data and risk of bias meant that evidence was of low to very low certainty. We were unable to combine results in meta-analysis due to diversity in interventions and outcomes.The studies examined the following five comparisons.Radiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatmentTwo observational studies contributed data. At the 12-year follow-up in one study, the risk of cognitive impairment (defined as cognitive disability deficits in at least five of 18 neuropsychological tests) was greater in the radiotherapy group (risk ratio (RR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.71; n = 65); at five to six years the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.06; n = 195). In the other study, one subject in the radiotherapy group had cognitive impairment (defined as significant deterioration in eight of 12 neuropsychological tests) at two years compared with none in the control group (very low certainty evidence).With regard to neurocognitive scores, in one study the radiotherapy group was reported to have had significantly worse mean scores on some tests compared with no radiotherapy; however, the raw data were only given for significant findings. In the second study, there were no clear differences in any of the various cognitive outcomes at two years (n = 31) and four years (n = 15) (very low certainty evidence).Radiotherapy versus chemotherapyOne RCT contributed data on cognitive impairment at up to three years with no clear difference between arms (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.70, n = 117) (low-certainty evidence).High-dose radiotherapy versus low-dose radiotherapyOnly one of two studies reporting this comparison contributed data, and at two and five years there were no clear differences between high- and low-dose radiotherapy arms (very low certainty evidence).Conventional radiotherapy versus stereotactic conformal radiotherapyOne study involving younger people contributed limited data from the subgroup aged 16 to 25 years. The numbers of participants with neurocognitive impairment at five years after treatment were two out of 12 in the conventional arm versus none out of 11 in the stereotactic conformal radiotherapy arm (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 86.72; n = 23; low-certainty evidence).Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapyTwo RCTs tested for cognitive impairment. One defined cognitive impairment as a decline of more than 3 points in MMSE score compared with baseline and reported data from 2-year (110 participants), 3-year (91 participants), and 5-year (57 participants) follow-up with no clear difference between the two arms at any time point. A second study did not report raw data but measured MMSE scores over five years in 126 participants at two years, 110 at three years, 69 at four years and 53 at five years. Authors concluded that there was no difference in MMSE scores between the two study arms (P = 0.4752) (low-certainty evidence).Two RCTs reported quality of life (QoL) outcomes for this comparison. One reported no differences in Brain-QoL scores between study arms over a 5-year follow-up period (P = 0.2767; no raw data were given and denominators were not stated). The other trial reported that the long-term results of health-related QoL showed no difference between the arms but did not give the raw data for overall HRQoL scores (low-certainty evidence).We found no comparative data on endocrine dysfunction; we planned to develop a brief economic commentary but found no relevant economic studies for inclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy for gliomas with a good prognosis may increase the risk of neurocognitive side effects in the long term; however the magnitude of the risk is uncertain. Evidence on long-term neurocognitive side effects associated with chemoradiotherapy is also uncertain. Neurocognitive assessment should be an integral part of long-term follow-up in trials involving radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas to improve the certainty of evidence regarding long-term neurocognitive effects. Such trials should also assess other potential long-term effects, including endocrine dysfunction, and evaluate costs and cost effectiveness.

Radiation and Immunotherapy in High-grade Gliomas: Where Do We Stand?

High-grade glioma is the most common primary brain tumor, with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) accounting for 52% of all brain tumors. The current standard of care (SOC) of GBM involves surgery followed by adjuvant fractionated radiotherapy and chemotherapy. However, little progress has been made in extending overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality of life. Attempts to characterize and customize treatment of GBM have led to mitigating the deleterious effects of radiotherapy using hypofractionated radiotherapy, as well as various immunotherapies as a promising strategy for the incurable disease. A combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy may prove to be even more effective than either alone, and preclinical evidence suggests that hypofractionated radiotherapy can actually prime the immune system to make immunotherapy more effective. This review addresses the complications of the current radiotherapy regimen, various methods of immunotherapy, and preclinical and clinical data from combined radioimmunotherapy trials.

Cognitive functions in low-grade gliomas: disease and treatment effects

BACKGROUND

The role of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the treatment of low-grade gliomas (LGG) is controversial regarding their effect on survival and the development of neurotoxicity. The few published studies examining adverse treatment effects on cognition revealed conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To assess cognitive functioning in LGG patients who received conformal radiation therapy (RT), chemotherapy, or no treatment.

DESIGN

40 LGG patients participated in the study; 16 patients had RT +/- chemotherapy, and 24 patients had no treatment. All patients underwent a neuropsychological evaluation. APOE genotype was obtained in 36 patients who were classified in two groups based on the presence or absence of at least one apolipoprotein E small je, Ukrainian-4 (APOE small je, Ukrainian-4) allele.

RESULTS

Treated LGG patients had lower scores than untreated patients on several cognitive domains; patients who completed treatment at intervals greater than 3 years and had long disease duration had significantly lower scores on the Non-Verbal Memory domain. Antiepileptic polytherapy, treatment history, and disease duration jointly contributed to low Psychomotor domain scores. 62% of treated patients showed white matter confluence on MRI, whereas only 9% of the untreated patients had such changes. Preliminary comparisons between APOE small je, Ukrainian-4 carriers (n = 9) and non-carriers (n = 27) on cognitive domain scores revealed no statistically significant differences, but APOE small je, Ukrainian-4 carriers had lower mean scores on the Verbal Memory domain than did non-small je, Ukrainian-4 carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

RT +/- chemotherapy, disease duration, and antiepileptic treatment contributed to mild cognitive difficulties in LGG patients.

The sequelae of cranial irradiation on human cognition

Cranial irradiation (CI) confers remediation of many CNS anomalies. CI, however, carries risks to cognitive performance. A wealth of data describes such deficits specifically in humans. Risk factors that promote increased susceptibility to cognitive decline have also been identified. This paper discusses and grades these risk factors, including age, gender, and the inclusion of chemotherapy, that increase the likelihood of pathologic cognitive development in the human population.