Factors associated with overall survival in breast cancer patients with leptomeningeal disease (LMD): a single institutional retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer-related leptomeningeal disease (BC-LMD) is a dire diagnosis for 5-8% of patients with breast cancer (BC). We conducted a retrospective review of BC-LMD patients diagnosed at Moffitt Cancer Center from 2011 to 2020, to determine the changing incidence of BC-LMD, factors which are associated with the progression of BC CNS metastasis to BC-LMD, and factors which are associated with OS for patients with BC-LMD. METHODS: Patients with BC and brain/spinal metastatic disease were identified. For those who eventually developed BC-LMD, we used Kaplan-Meier survival curve, log-rank test, univariable, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model to identify factors affecting time from CNS metastasis to BC-LMD and OS. RESULTS: 128 cases of BC-LMD were identified. The proportion of BC-LMD to total BC patients was higher between 2016 and 2020 when compared to 2011-2015. Patients with HR+ or HER2 + BC experienced longer times between CNS metastasis and LMD than patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Systemic therapy and whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) was associated with prolonged progression to LMD in all patients. Hormone therapy in patients with HR + BC were associated with a delayed BC-CNS metastasis to LMD progression. Lapatinib treatment was associated with a delayed progression to LMD in patients with HER2 + BC. Patients with TNBC-LMD had shorter OS compared to those with HR + and HER2 + BC-LMD. Systemic therapy, intrathecal (IT) therapy, and WBRT was associated with prolonged survival for all patients. Lapatinib and trastuzumab therapy was associated with improved OS in patients with HER2 + BC-LMD. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing rates of BC-LMD provide treatment challenges and opportunities for clinical trials. Prospective trials testing lapatinib and/or similar tyrosine kinase inhibitors, IT therapies, and combination treatments are urgently needed.

Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone versus nivolumab and ipilimumab with stereotactic radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: Upfront dual checkpoint blockade with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated efficacy for treating melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in asymptomatic patients. Whether the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with dual checkpoint blockade improves outcomes over dual-checkpoint blockade alone is unknown. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with MBM receiving ICI with nivolumab and ipilimumab, with and without SRS. METHODS: 49 patients with 158 MBM receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab for untreated MBM between 2015 and 2022 were identified at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics including age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), presence of symptoms, cancer history, MBM burden, and therapy course were recorded. Outcomes measured from initiation of MBM-directed therapy included overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC). Time-to-event analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 25 patients with 74 MBM received ICI alone, and 24 patients with 84 MBM received concurrent SRS. Median follow-up was 24 months. No differences in age (p = 0.96), KPS (p = 0.85), presence of symptoms (p = 0.79), prior MBM (p = 0.68), prior MBM-directed surgery (p = 0.96) or SRS (p = 0.68), MBM size (p = 0.67), or MBM number (p = 0.94) were seen. There was a higher rate of nivolumab and ipilimumab course completion in the SRS group (54% vs. 24%; p = 0.029). The SRS group received prior immunotherapy more often than the ICI alone group (54% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 1-year OS (72% vs. 71%, p = 0.20) and DIC (63% v 51%, p = 0.26) between groups. The SRS group had higher 1-year LC (92% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, LC was improved with combination therapy (AHR 0.38, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In our analysis, patients who received SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab had superior LC without increased risk of toxicity or compromised immunotherapy treatment completion despite the SRS cohort having higher rates of prior immunotherapy. Further prospective study of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab with SRS is warranted.

Virtual multi-institutional tumor board: a strategy for personalized diagnoses and management of rare CNS tumors.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) integrate clinical, molecular, and radiological information and facilitate coordination of neuro-oncology care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, our MTB transitioned to a virtual and multi-institutional format. We hypothesized that this expansion would allow expert review of challenging neuro-oncology cases and contribute to the care of patients with limited access to specialized centers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records from virtual MTBs held between 04/2020-03/2021. Data collected included measures of potential clinical impact, including referrals to observational or therapeutic studies, referrals for specialized neuropathology analysis, and whether molecular findings led to a change in diagnosis and/or guided management suggestions. RESULTS: During 25 meetings, 32 presenters discussed 44 cases. Approximately half (n = 20; 48%) involved a rare central nervous system (CNS) tumor. In 21% (n = 9) the diagnosis was changed or refined based on molecular profiling obtained at the NIH and in 36% (n = 15) molecular findings guided management. Clinical trial suggestions were offered to 31% (n = 13), enrollment in the observational NCI Natural History Study to 21% (n = 9), neuropathology review and molecular testing at the NIH to 17% (n = 7), and all received management suggestions. CONCLUSION: Virtual multi-institutional MTBs enable remote expert review of CNS tumors. We propose them as a strategy to facilitate expert opinions from specialized centers, especially for rare CNS tumors, helping mitigate geographic barriers to patient care and serving as a pre-screening tool for studies. Advanced molecular testing is key to obtaining a precise diagnosis, discovering potentially actionable targets, and guiding management.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Central Nervous System Cancers, Version 2.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Central Nervous System (CNS) Cancers focus on management of the following adult CNS cancers: glioma (WHO grade 1, WHO grade 2-3 oligodendroglioma [1p19q codeleted, IDH-mutant], WHO grade 2-4 IDH-mutant astrocytoma, WHO grade 4 glioblastoma), intracranial and spinal ependymomas, medulloblastoma, limited and extensive brain metastases, leptomeningeal metastases, non-AIDS-related primary CNS lymphomas, metastatic spine tumors, meningiomas, and primary spinal cord tumors. The information contained in the algorithms and principles of management sections in the NCCN Guidelines for CNS Cancers are designed to help clinicians navigate through the complex management of patients with CNS tumors. Several important principles guide surgical management and treatment with radiotherapy and systemic therapy for adults with brain tumors. The NCCN CNS Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's most recent recommendations regarding molecular profiling of gliomas.

Tucatinib and stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of HER2 positive breast cancer brain metastases.

PURPOSE: HER2-positive breast cancer has a high risk of brain metastasis. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is standard of care for limited brain metastases. Tucatinib, a HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated intracranial efficacy in the HER2-CLIMB Trial. However, it is unknown whether tucatinib with SRS is safe or effective. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of HER2-positive breast cancer treated with SRS and tucatinib for brain metastases management was performed. All patients received tucatinib and SRS for the management of active brain metastases. The primary endpoint was local and distant brain tumor control. Secondary endpoints were intracranial progression free survival (CNS-PFS), systemic PFS, overall survival (OS), and neurotoxicity. RESULTS: A total of 135 lesions treated with SRS over 39 treatment sessions in 22 patients were identified. Median follow-up from tucatinib initiation was 20.8 months. Local brain control was 94% at 12-months and 81% at 24-months. Distant brain control was 39% at 12-months and 26% at 24-months. Median survival was 21.2 months, with 12- and 24-month OS rates of 84% and 50%, respectively. Median CNS-PFS was 11.3 months, with 12- and 24-month CNS-PFS rates of 44.9% at both time points. Median systemic PFS was not reached, with 12- and 24-month systemic PFS rates of 86% and 57%, respectively. Symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in 6 (4%) lesions. No additional unexpected toxicities were noted. CONCLUSIONS: SRS in combination with tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab appears to be a safe and feasible treatment for HER2 + brain metastases. Further prospective evaluation of potential synergistic effects is warranted.

The presentation of brain metastases in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and breast cancer and potential implications for screening brain MRIs.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the presentation and institutional outcomes treating brain metastases (BM) of breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma origin. METHODS: Patients with brain metastases treated between 2014 and 2019 with primary melanoma, NSCLC, and BC were identified. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from dates of initial BM diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 959 patients were identified including melanoma (31%), NSCLC (51%), and BC (18%). Patients with BC were younger at BM diagnosis (median age: 57) than NSCLC (65) and melanoma patients (62, p < 0.0001). Breast cancer patients were more likely to present with at least 5 BM (27%) than NSCLC (14%) and melanoma (13%), leptomeningeal disease (23%, 6%, and 6%, p = 0.0004) and receive whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) (58%, 37%, and 22%, p < 0.0001). There were no differences in surgical resection (24%, 24%, and 29%, p = 0.166). Median OS was shorter for BC patients (9.9, 10.3, and 13.7 months, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients were more likely to be younger, present with advanced disease, require WBRT, and have poorer OS than NSCLC and melanoma patients. Further investigation is needed to determine which BC patients are at sufficient risk for brain MRI screening.

Evolving management of HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases and leptomeningeal disease.

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer are at a particularly high risk of breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) and leptomeningeal disease (LMD). Improvements in systemic therapy have translated to improved survival for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. However, the optimal management of these cases is rapidly evolving and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Herein, a team of radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, and breast surgeon created a review of the evolving management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. We assess the epidemiology, diagnosis, and evolving treatment options for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD, as well as the ongoing prospective clinical trials enrolling these patients. The management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD represents an increasingly common challenge that involves the coordination of local and systemic therapy. Advances in systemic therapy have resulted in an improved prognosis, and promising targeted therapies currently under prospective investigation have the potential to further benefit these patients.

Patient satisfaction and cost savings analysis of the telemedicine program within a neuro-oncology department.

PURPOSE: Unique challenges exist in the utilization of telemedicine for neurological and surgical specialties. We examined the differences in patient satisfaction for telemedicine versus in-person visits within a Neuro-Oncology Program to assess whether there was a difference between surgical and medical specialties. We also examined the potential cost savings benefits of utilizing telemedicine. METHODS: 1189 Press Ganey surveys in the Department of Neuro-Oncology (982 in-person and 207 telemedicine) by surgical and medical neuro-oncology patients between 04/01/2020 and 06/30/2021 were reviewed. Survey results were divided into 4 categories (Access, Provider, Technology (telemedicine only), and Overall Satisfaction). Results were analyzed for the impact of telemedicine versus in-person visits, and gender, age, insurance, and specialty. Cost savings were calculated based on potential travel distance and lost productivity. RESULTS: Survey results from telemedicine visits demonstrated that patients with private insurance returned higher scores in the Provider (p = 0.0089), Technology (p = 0.00187), and Overall (p = 0.00382) categories. Surgical patients returned higher scores for Access (p = 0.0015), Technology (p = 0.0002), and Overall (p = 0.0019). When comparing telemedicine to in-person scores, in-person scored higher in Provider (p = 0.0092) for all patients, while in-person scored higher in Access (p = 0.0252) amongst surgical patients. Cost analysis revealed that telemedicine allowed patients to save an average of 4.1 to 5.6 h per visit time and a potential cost savings of up to $223.3 ± 171.4. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine yields equivalent patient satisfaction when employed in surgical as compared to medical Neuro-Oncology patients with the potential to lessen the financial and time burden on neuro-oncology patients.

Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment for Leptomeningeal Disease in Melanoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Melanoma has one of the highest incidences of causing leptomeningeal disease (LMD) among solid tumors. LMD patients have very poor prognosis with a dismal survival despite aggressive management. In this article, we review the current approaches in the management of patients with LMD secondary to melanoma, including updates in diagnosis, treatment, up-to-date clinical studies, and future directions. RECENT FINDINGS: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology remains the gold standard for diagnosis, and alternatively, MRI based on clinical presentation can be used. Other approaches such as "liquid biopsies" that detect circulating tumor cells and cell-free DNA have the potential to considerably enhance the diagnosis of LMD from melanoma. As for treatment options, several systemic therapies, involving systemic targeted and immunotherapies have evolved that showed to have possible benefit in LMD patients. Intrathecal chemotherapy, cellular therapy, and immunotherapy are currently under evaluation in Phase I/II clinical trials. In addition, new radiation therapy approaches such as proton cranial-spinal irradiation (CSI) are currently under investigation. LMD management still remains challenging. Future studies are critical to elucidate the pathophysiology of LMD in order to develop new urgently needed diagnostic tools and therapies. Clinical trials ought to be expanded to include patients with LMD. Future clinical studies should also integrate tissue interrogation, scientifically designed therapies, and aggressive, early intervention in patients with suspected LMD.

Addressing a critical need for caregiver support in neuro-oncology: development of a caregiver navigation intervention using eSNAP social resource visualization.

Informal caregivers are key to oncology care, but often have unmet needs, leading to poor psychological and physical health outcomes. Comprehensive, proactive caregiver support programs are needed. We describe the development of a support intervention for caregivers of persons with brain tumors. The intervention uses a caregiver navigator to help participants identify and capitalize on existing social support resources captured using a web-based tool (eSNAP) and connects participants to existing formal services. We describe the iterative development process of the manualized intervention with particular focus on the caregiver navigator sessions. The process included review of the literature and published patient navigation programs, expert and stakeholder review, and study team member review. Quantitative and qualitative data were captured from the first 15 participants randomized to receive the intervention, enrolled from February 2020 to December 2020. Four participants dropped from the study, 9 completed at least 7 modules, and 8 participants completed all 8. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected primarily from those who completed the intervention; data suggest caregivers were satisfied with the intervention and found it helpful. Our intervention is one of the first theory-based caregiver support interventions to include caregiver navigation in neuro-oncology. We use best-practice guidelines for design, including extensive stakeholder feedback. COVID-19 may have impacted recruitment and participation, but some preliminary data suggest that those able to engage with the intervention find it helpful. Data collection is ongoing in a larger trial. If effective, caregiver navigation could be a model for future interventions to ensure caregiver support.

Training cancer caregiver navigators: experiences from implementing the eSNAP and caregiver navigator intervention.

Patient navigation is increasingly common in cancer care. While navigation programs often involve informal family caregivers, few navigation interventions specifically target the family caregiver. We developed the eSNAP and Caregiver Navigator Intervention to help cancer family caregivers identify and capitalize on informal and formal social support resources. While the skill set for patient navigators may be adequate for supporting caregivers, other skills and areas of knowledge expertise are needed. In addition, sparse documentation of navigator training best practices creates further challenges for dissemination and implementation. Our goal is to describe the education and training of cancer caregiver navigators within key competencies used to prepare and support navigators to deliver our manualized intervention. Nationally recognized navigation competencies, related to developing a sensitivity to ethical, cultural, and professional issues, knowledge development, skills development, and practice-based learning, were identified and adapted. Performance goals were identified within each competency. Training activities were selected to support competency development. Based on adult learning theories, we emphasize multiple learning strategies, including experiential learning and critical reflection. Two caregiver navigators engaged in initial training between December, 2019 and February, 2020. Initial training was supervised by study leadership, who coordinated with experts and stakeholders. Navigators completed initial training. We describe lessons learned. To ensure that navigators are well-equipped to provide effective services, evidence-based training programs that include navigation and protocol-specific competencies are needed. Given the lack of detailed training programs in the literature, we created a flexible, multimodal learning approach that other teams may adopt.

Long-term outcomes of patients with active melanoma brain metastases treated with combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 204): final results of an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5-3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7-36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2-35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2-67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3-63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7-64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8-79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6-40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0-59·8). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A). INTERPRETATION: The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

BRAF Inhibitor Therapy-Related Encephalitis in a Patient with Metastatic Melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: BRAF inhibitors such as encorafenib and vemurafenib in combination with MEK inhibitors are commonly used for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient with relapsed metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation was started on treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib. Within 2 weeks of treatment start, he was hospitalized and diagnosed with encephalitis through a lumbar puncture and treated with corticosteroids, with subsequent normalization of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings. When he recovered and was switched to encorafenib treatment, the same symptoms recurred, and the patient was treated with high-dose steroids and intravenous immunoglobulin, again with improvement in his CSF. He has not had a relapse of his symptoms since BRAF inhibitor treatment was permanently discontinued. CONCLUSION: This is the first known report of a patient who has developed encephalitis because of treatment with BRAF inhibitors.

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. RESULTS: Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) and stereotactic radiation in the management of HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent concerns about the toxicity of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with stereotactic radiation, we assessed our institutional outcomes treating HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) with T-DM1 and stereotactic radiation. METHODS: This is a single institution series of 16 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who underwent 18 stereotactic sessions to 40 BCBM from 2013 to 2019 with T-DM1 delivered within 6 months. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), distant intracranial control (DIC), and systemic progression-free survival (sPFS) from the date of SRS. A neuro-radiologist independently reviewed follow-up imaging. RESULTS: One patient had invasive lobular carcinoma, and 15 patients had invasive ductal carcinoma. All cases were HER2-positive, while 10 were hormone receptor (HR) positive. Twenty-four lesions were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to a median dose of 21 Gy (14-24 Gy). Sixteen lesions were treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation (FSRT) with a median dose of 25 Gy (20-30Gy) delivered in 3 to 5 fractions. Stereotactic radiation was delivered concurrently with T-DM1 in 19 lesions (48%). Median follow up time was 13.2 months from stereotactic radiation. The 1-year LC, DIC, sPFS, and OS were 75, 50, 30, and 67%, respectively. There was 1 case of leptomeningeal progression and 1 case (3%) of symptomatic radionecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that stereotactic radiation and T-DM1 is well-tolerated and effective for patients with HER2-positive BCBM. An increased risk for symptomatic radiation necrosis was not noted in our series.

Capecitabine and stereotactic radiation in the management of breast cancer brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the safety and efficacy of concurrent capecitabine and stereotactic radiotherapy in the setting of breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). METHODS: Twenty-three patients with BCBM underwent 31 stereotactic sessions to 90 lesions from 2005 to 2019 with receipt of capecitabine. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC) from the date of stereotactic radiation. Imaging was independently reviewed by a neuro-radiologist. RESULTS: Median follow-up from stereotactic radiation was 9.2 months. Receptor types of patients treated included triple negative (n = 7), hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- (n = 7), HR+/HER2+ (n = 6), and HR-/HER2+ (n = 3). Fourteen patients had stage IV disease prior to BCBM diagnosis. The median number of brain metastases treated per patient was 3 (1 to 12). The median dose of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was 21 Gy (range: 15-24 Gy) treated in a single fraction and for lesions treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT) 25 Gy (24-30 Gy) in a median of 5 fractions (range: 3-5). Of the 31 stereotactic sessions, 71% occurred within 1 month of capecitabine. No increased toxicity was noted in our series with no cases of radionecrosis. The 1-year OS, LC, and DIC were 46, 88, and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our single institution experience, we demonstrate stereotactic radiation and capecitabine to be a safe treatment for patients with BCBM with adequate LC. Further study is needed to determine the potential synergy between stereotactic radiation and capecitabine in the management of BCBM.

Breast cancer subtype predicts clinical outcomes after stereotactic radiation for brain metastases.

PURPOSE: We investigated the prognostic ability of tumor subtype for patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) treated with stereotactic radiation (SRT). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 181 patients who underwent SRT to 664 BCBM from 2004 to 2019. Patients were stratified by subtype: hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-), HR-positive, HER2-positive (HR+/HER2+), HR-negative, HER2-positive (HR-/HER2+), and triple negative (TN). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC) from the date of SRT. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Median follow up from SRT was 11.4 months. Of the 181 patients, 47 (26%) were HR+/HER2+, 30 (17%) were HR-/HER2+, 60 (33%) were HR+/HER2-, and 44 (24%) were TN. Of the 664 BCBMs, 534 (80%) received single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with a median dose of 21 Gy (range 12-24 Gy), and 130 (20%) received fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT), with a median dose of 25 Gy (range 12.5-35 Gy) delivered in 3 to 5 fractions. One-year LC was 90%. Two-year DIC was 35%, 23%, 27%, and 16% (log rank, p = 0.0003) and 2-year OS was 54%, 47%, 24%, and 12% (log rank, p < 0.0001) for HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+, HR+/HER2-, and TN subtypes, respectively. On MVA, the TN subtype predicted for inferior DIC (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00-2.60, p = 0.049). The modified breast-Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) significantly predicted DIC and OS (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subtype is prognostic for OS and DIC for patients with BCBM treated with SRT.

Durable Progression-Free Survival With the Use of BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in Four Cases With BRAF V600E-Mutated Gliomas.

INTRODUCTION: BRAF V600 E mutations have been identified in a subset of patients with primary brain tumors. Combination therapy with BRAF and Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) targeting sequential steps in the MAPK pathway has replaced BRAFi monotherapy as the standard of care in multiple tumors with BRAF V600 E mutations, and clinical evidence for this strategy continues to grow in primary brain tumors. CASE SERIES: We describe four patients with BRAF V600 E mutated gliomas, including a 21-year-old woman with a ganglioglioma WHO grade I, a 19-year-old man with a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma WHO grade III, and 21-year-old and 33-year-old women with epithelioid GBM WHO grade IV, who achieved durable progression-free survival with combination BRAF/MEKi. CONCLUSION: Combination of BRAF/MEK inhibition can be a novel, promising approach as targeted therapy in gliomas with BRAF V600 E mutations, especially those that are resistant to standard therapy. Our cases, along with other early reports utilizing dabrafenib/trametinib, highlight the importance of somatic next-generation sequencing, particularly in younger patients. Interim results from clinical trials utilizing dabrafenib/trametinib have been promising thus far, and our case series suggests that durable clinical benefit is possible, even in the setting of glioblastoma, WHO grade IV.

A randomized wait-list controlled trial of a social support intervention for caregivers of patients with primary malignant brain tumor.

BACKGROUND: Informal family caregivers constitute an important and increasingly demanding role in the cancer healthcare system. This is especially true for caregivers of patients with primary malignant brain tumors based on the rapid progression of disease, including physical and cognitive debilitation. Informal social network resources such as friends and family can provide social support to caregivers, which lowers caregiver burden and improves overall quality of life. However, barriers to obtaining needed social support exist for caregivers. To address this need, our team developed and is assessing a multi-component caregiver support intervention that uses a blend of technology and personal contact to improve caregiver social support. METHODS: We are currently conducting a prospective, longitudinal 2-group randomized controlled trial which compares caregivers who receive the intervention to a wait-list control group. Only caregivers directly receive the intervention, but the patient-caregiver dyads are enrolled so we can assess outcomes in both. The 8-week intervention consists of two components: (1) The electronic Social Network Assessment Program, a web-based tool to visualize existing social support resources and provide a tailored list of additional resources; and (2) Caregiver Navigation, including weekly phone sessions with a Caregiver Navigator to address caregiver social support needs. Outcomes are assessed by questionnaires completed by the caregiver (baseline, 4-week, 8-week) and the cancer patient (baseline, and 8-week). At 8 weeks, caregivers in the wait-list condition may opt into the intervention. Our primary outcome is caregiver well-being; we also explore patient well-being and caregiver and patient health care utilization. DISCUSSION: This protocol describes a study testing a novel social support intervention that pairs a web-based social network visualization tool and resource list (eSNAP) with personalized caregiver navigation. This intervention is responsive to a family-centered model of care and calls for clinical and research priorities focused on informal caregiving research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , Registration number: NCT04268979 ; Date of registration: February 10, 2020, retrospectively registered.

Inhibition of glioma using a novel non-neurotoxic vesicular stomatitis virus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the in vivo safety and antitumor effect of a novel recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV): G protein less (GLESS)-fusion-associated small transmembrane (FAST)-VSV. METHODS: Viral infection efficiency and cell proliferation were detected using an inverted fluorescence microscope and alarmaBlue assay, respectively. To evaluate the safety of the virus, different doses of GLESS-FAST-VSV and a positive control virus (VSV∆M51) were injected into normal F344 rats and C57BL/6 mice, and each animal's weight, survival time, and pathological changes were examined on the following day. To evaluate the efficacy of the virus, RG2 and GL261 cells were used to construct rat and mouse glioma models, respectively, via a stereotactic method. After multiple intratumoral injections of the virus, tumor growth (size) and the survival time of the animals were observed. RESULTS: In vitro experiments showed that GLESS-FAST-VSV could infect and kill brain tumor cells and had less toxic effects on normal cells. After direct injection of GLESS-FAST-VSV into the animal brains, all animals tolerated the virus well, and no animal death, encephalitis, or ventriculitis was observed. In contrast, all animals that received brain injections of VSV∆M51 in the brain died. Moreover, multiple injections of GLESS-FAST-VSV in brain tumors significantly prolonged the survival of normal-immunity animals harboring brain tumors. CONCLUSIONS: GLESS-FAST-VSV exhibited little neurotoxicity and could be injected directly into the tumor to effectively inhibit tumor growth and prolong the survival of normal-immunity animals, laying a theoretical foundation for the early application of such viruses in clinical trials.