Stability of Programmable Shunt Valve Settings with Simultaneous Use of the Optune Transducer Array: A Case Report

The safety profile of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy in glioblastoma patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunts

INTRODUCTION

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields, 200 kHz) therapy is a noninvasive, locoregional cancer treatment approved for use in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM), recurrent GBM, and malignant pleural mesothelioma. GBM patients with hydrocephalus may require implantation of a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt, however, the current TTFields therapy label does not include the use of VP shunts in GBM patients due to insufficient safety data. This analysis evaluates the safety of TTFields therapy use in this population.

METHODS

Unsolicited post-marketing global surveillance data from patients with GBM and a VP shunt (programmable/non-programmable) who received TTFields therapy between November 2012-April 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 24.0.

RESULTS

Overall, 156 patients with VP shunts were identified and included in this analysis. In total, 77% reported  ≥ 1 AE; the most common TTFields therapy-related AEs were non-serious and localized, beneath-array skin AEs (43%). The incidence and categories of AEs were comparable between patients with or without VP shunts. Six patients with VP shunts experienced seven serious TTFields therapy-related AEs: skin erosion at the shunt site (n = 3); wound dehiscence at the shunt site (n = 2) and at the resection scar (n = 2). No shunt malfunctions were deemed related to TTFields therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real-world setting, TTFields therapy in GBM patients with VP shunts demonstrated good tolerability and a favorable safety profile. There was no evidence that TTFields therapy disrupted VP shunt effectiveness. These results suggest TTFields therapy may be safely used in patients with VP shunts.

Intraoperative MR Imaging during Glioma Resection

One of the major issues in the surgical treatment of gliomas is the concern about maximizing the extent of resection while minimizing neurological impairment. Thus, surgical planning by carefully observing the relationship between the glioma infiltration area and eloquent area of the connecting fibers is crucial. Neurosurgeons usually detect an eloquent area by functional MRI and identify a connecting fiber by diffusion tensor imaging. However, during surgery, the accuracy of neuronavigation can be decreased due to brain shift, but the positional information may be updated by intraoperative MRI and the next steps can be planned accordingly. In addition, various intraoperative modalities may be used to guide surgery, including neurophysiological monitoring that provides real-time information (e.g., awake surgery, motor-evoked potentials, and sensory evoked potential); photodynamic diagnosis, which can identify high-grade glioma cells; and other imaging techniques that provide anatomical information during the surgery. In this review, we present the historical and current context of the intraoperative MRI and some related approaches for an audience active in the technical, clinical, and research areas of radiology, as well as mention important aspects regarding safety and types of devices.

Tumor-Treating Fields for the treatment of glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor-Treating Fields (TTFields) is an emerging treatment modality for glioblastoma (GBM). Studies have shown a good safety profile alongside improved efficacy in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM), while a less clear effect was shown for recurrent GBM (rGBM). Despite regulatory support, sectors of the neuro-oncology community have been reluctant to accept it as part of the standard treatment protocol. To establish an objective understanding of TTFields' mechanism of action, safety, efficacy, and economical implications, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Twenty studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria, incorporating 1636 patients (542 ndGBM and 1094 rGBM), and 11 558 patients (6403 ndGBM and 5155 rGBM) analyzed for the clinical outcomes and safety endpoints, respectively.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated improved clinical efficacy and a good safety profile of TTFields. For ndGBM, pooled median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 21.7 (95%CI = 19.6-23.8) and 7.2 (95%CI = 6.1-8.2) months, respectively. For rGBM, pooled median OS and PFS were 10.3 (95%CI = 8.3-12.8) and 5.7 (95%CI = 2.8-10) months, respectively. Compliance of ≥75% was associated with an improved OS and the predominant adverse events were dermatologic, with a pooled prevalence of 38.4% (95%CI = 32.3-44.9). Preclinical studies demonstrated TTFields' diverse molecular mechanism of action, its potential synergistic efficacy, and suggest possible benefits for certain populations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the use of TTFields for GBM, alongside the standard-of-care treatment protocol, and provides a practical summary, discussing the current clinical and preclinical aspects of the treatment and their implication on the disease course.