Tumor-treating fields dosimetry in glioblastoma: Insights into treatment planning, optimization, and dose-response relationships.

Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are currently a Category 1A treatment recommendation by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Center for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Although the mechanism of action of TTFields has been partly elucidated, tangible and standardized metrics are lacking to assess antitumor dose and effects of the treatment. This paper outlines and evaluates the current standards and methodologies in the estimation of the TTFields distribution and dose measurement in the brain and highlights the most important principles governing TTFields dosimetry. The focus is on clinical utility to facilitate a practical understanding of these principles and how they can be used to guide treatment. The current evidence for a correlation between TTFields dose, tumor growth, and clinical outcome will be presented and discussed. Furthermore, we will provide perspectives and updated insights into the planning and optimization of TTFields therapy for glioblastoma by reviewing how the dose and thermal effects of TTFields are affected by factors such as tumor location and morphology, peritumoral edema, electrode array position, treatment duration (compliance), array "edge effect," electrical duty cycle, and skull-remodeling surgery. Finally, perspectives are provided on how to optimize the efficacy of future TTFields therapy.

Intraventricular Lavage vs External Ventricular Drainage for Intraventricular Hemorrhage: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Intraventricular lavage has been proposed as a minimally invasive method to evacuate intraventricular hemorrhage. There is little evidence to support its use. Objective: To evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of intraventricular lavage treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blinded, controlled, investigator-initiated 1:1 randomized clinical trial was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital and Odense University Hospital in Denmark from January 13, 2022, to November 24, 2022. Follow-up duration was 90 days. The trial was set to include 58 patients with intraventricular hemorrhage. Prespecified interim analysis was performed for the first 20 participants. Data were analyzed from February to April 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive either intraventricular lavage or standard drainage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was risk of catheter occlusions. Additional safety outcomes were catheter-related infections and procedure time, length of stay at the intensive care unit, duration of treatment, and 30-day mortality. The main outcome of the prespecified interim analysis was risk of severe adverse events. Efficacy outcomes were hematoma clearance, functional outcome, overall survival, and shunt dependency. Results: A total of 21 participants (median [IQR] age, 67 [59-82] years; 14 [66%] male) were enrolled, with 11 participants randomized to intraventricular lavage and 10 participants randomized to standard drainage; 20 participants (95%) had secondary intraventricular hemorrhage. The median (IQR) Graeb score was 9 (5-11), and the median (IQR) Glasgow Coma Scale score was 6.5 (4-8). The study was terminated early due to a significantly increased risk of severe adverse events associated with intraventricular lavage at interim analysis (risk difference for control vs intervention, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .04; incidence rate ratio for control vs intervention, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.38-26.1; P = .01). The rate of catheter occlusion was higher for intraventricular lavage compared with drainage (6 of 16 patients [38%] vs 2 of 13 patients [7%]; hazard ratio, 4.4 [95% CI, 0.6-31.2]; P = .14), which met the prespecified α = .20 level. Median (IQR) procedure time for catheter placement was 53.5 (33-75) minutes for intraventricular lavage vs 12 (4-20) minutes for control (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial of intraventricular lavage vs standard drainage found that intraventricular lavage was encumbered with a significantly increased number of severe adverse events. Caution is recommended when using the device to ensure patient safety. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05204849.

Guidelines for Burr Hole Surgery in Combination With Tumor Treating Fields for Glioblastoma: A Computational Study on Dose Optimization and Array Layout Planning.

Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is an anti-cancer technology increasingly used for the treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, cranial burr holes have been used experimentally to enhance the intensity (dose) of TTFields in the underlying tumor region. In the present study, we used computational finite element methods to systematically characterize the impact of the burr hole position and the TTFields transducer array layout on the TTFields distribution calculated in a realistic human head model. We investigated a multitude of burr hole positions and layouts to illustrate the basic principles of optimal treatment planning. The goal of the paper was to provide simple rules of thumb for physicians to use when planning the TTFields in combination with skull remodeling surgery. Our study suggests a number of key findings, namely that (1) burr holes should be placed directly above the region of interest, (2) field enhancement occurs mainly underneath the holes, (3) the ipsilateral array should directly overlap the holes and the contralateral array should be placed directly opposite, (4) arrays in a pair should be placed at far distance and not close to each other to avoid current shunting, and finally (5) rotation arrays around their central normal axis can be done without diminishing the enhancing effect of the burr holes. Minor deviations and adjustments (<3 cm) of arrays reduces the enhancement to some extent although the procedure is still effective in these settings. In conclusion, our study provides simple guiding principles for implementation of dose-enhanced TTFields in combination with burr-holes. Future studies are required to validate our findings in additional models at the patient specific level.

Effect of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid and Sodium Fluorescein on the Extent of Resection in High-Grade Gliomas and Brain Metastasis.

Surgery is essential in the treatment of high-grade gliomas (HGG) and gross total resection (GTR) is known to increase the overall survival and progression-free survival. Several studies have shown that fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) increases GTR considerably compared to white light surgery (65% vs. 36%). In recent years, sodium fluorescein (SF) has become an increasingly popular agent for fluorescence-guided surgery due to numerous utility benefits compared to 5-ALA, including lower cost, non-toxicity, easy administration during surgery and a wide indication range covering all contrast-enhancing lesions with disruption of the blood-brain barrier in the CNS. However, currently, SF is an off-label agent and the level of evidence for use in HGG surgery is inferior compared to 5-ALA. Here, we give an update and review the latest literature on fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-ALA and SF for brain tumors with emphasis on fluorescence-guided surgery in HGG and brain metastases. Further, we assess the advantages and disadvantages of both fluorophores and discuss their future perspectives.

OptimalTTF-1: Enhancing tumor treating fields therapy with skull remodeling surgery. A clinical phase I trial in adult recurrent glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that skull remodeling surgery (SR-surgery) increases the dose of tumor treating fields (TTFields) in glioblastoma (GBM) and prevents wasteful current shunting through the skin. SR-surgery introduces minor skull defects to focus the cancer-inhibiting currents toward the tumor and increase the treatment dose. This study aimed to test the safety and feasibility of this concept in a phase I setting. METHODS: Fifteen adult patients with the first recurrence of GBM were treated with personalized SR-surgery, TTFields, and physician's choice oncological therapy. The primary endpoint was toxicity and secondary endpoints included standard efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: SR-surgery resulted in a mean skull defect area of 10.6 cm2 producing a median TTFields enhancement of 32% (range 25-59%). The median TTFields treatment duration was 6.8 months and the median compliance rate 90%. Patients received either bevacizumab, bevacizumab/irinotecan, or temozolomide rechallenge. We observed 71 adverse events (AEs) of grades 1 (52%), 2 (35%), and 3 (13%). There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs or intervention-related serious AEs. Six patients experienced minor TTFields-induced skin rash. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months and the PFS rate at 6 months was 36%. The median overall survival (OS) was 15.5 months and the OS rate at 12 months was 55%. CONCLUSIONS: TTFields therapy combined with SR-surgery and medical oncological treatment is safe and nontoxic and holds the potential to improve the outcome for GBM patients through focal dose enhancement in the tumor.

[Tumor treating fields in cancer treatment in Denmark].

Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a new non-invasive approach to cancer treatment. TTFields is low-intensity (1-5 V/m), intermediate frequency (150-200 kHz) alternating electric fields delivered locally to the tumour to selectively kill dividing cells and disrupt cancer growth. TTFields has proven safe and effective for newly diagnosed glioblastoma and is currently being tried for multiple other tumours. This review presents an introduction to TTFields, covering the main indications, the application method, the mechanism of action, the clinical results and the perspectives for implementation in Danish cancer treatment.

[Tumor treating fields in cancer treatment in Denmark].

Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a new non-invasive approach to cancer treatment. TTFields are low-intensity (1-5 V/m), intermediate frequency (150-200 kHz) alternating electric fields delivered locally to the tumour to selectively kill dividing cells and disrupt cancer growth. TTFields has proven safe and effective for newly diagnosed glioblastoma and is currently being tried for multiple other tumours. This review presents an introduction to TTFields, covering the main indications, the application method, the mechanism of action, the clinical results and the perspectives for implementation in Danish cancer treatment.

Enhancing Tumor Treating Fields Therapy with Skull-Remodeling Surgery. The Role of Finite Element Methods in Surgery Planning.

Skull-remodeling surgery has been proposed to enhance the dose of tumor treating fields in glioblastoma treatment. This abstract describes the finite element methods used to plan the surgery and evaluate the treatment efficacy.

Importance of electrode position for the distribution of tumor treating fields (TTFields) in a human brain. Identification of effective layouts through systematic analysis of array positions for multiple tumor locations.

Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a new modality used for the treatment of glioblastoma. It is based on antineoplastic low-intensity electric fields induced by two pairs of electrode arrays placed on the patient's scalp. The layout of the arrays greatly impacts the intensity (dose) of TTFields in the pathology. The present study systematically characterizes the impact of array position on the TTFields distribution calculated in a realistic human head model using finite element methods. We investigate systematic rotations of arrays around a central craniocaudal axis of the head and identify optimal layouts for a large range of (nineteen) different frontoparietal tumor positions. In addition, we present comprehensive graphical representations and animations to support the users' understanding of TTFields. For most tumors, we identified two optimal array positions. These positions varied with the translation of the tumor in the anterior-posterior direction but not in the left-right direction. The two optimal directions were oriented approximately orthogonally and when combining two pairs of orthogonal arrays, equivalent to clinical TTFields therapy, we correspondingly found a single optimum position. In most cases, an oblique layout with the fields oriented at forty-five degrees to the sagittal plane was superior to the commonly used anterior-posterior and left-right combinations of arrays. The oblique configuration may be used as an effective and viable configuration for most frontoparietal tumors. Our results may be applied to assist clinical decision-making in various challenging situations associated with TTFields. This includes situations in which circumstances, such as therapy-induced skin rash, scar tissue or shunt therapy, etc., require layouts alternative to the prescribed. More accurate distributions should, however, be based on patient-specific models. Future work is needed to assess the robustness of the presented results towards variations in conductivity.