Clinical Efficacy of Tumor Treating Fields for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Whether adding tumor treating fields (TTF) to the Stupp protocol increases survival for glioblastoma (GBM) patients in routine clinical care remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified adult patients with newly diagnosed GBM (n=104) treated with the Stupp protocol or TTF at our Institution. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent (37/104) of patients received TTF in conjunction with the Stupp protocol and these patients had increased 6-month (p=0.006) and 1-year (p=0.170), but not 2-year survival rates compared to the 67-patients who received Stupp alone. The improvement of survival rate at 6-month was further confirmed by a modified Poisson model (p=0.010). However, we did not observe any improvement in overall survival (OS) with a Cox model. CONCLUSION: While adding TTF to the Stupp protocol appeared to benefit patients with newly diagnosed GBM, this effect was mild and may be largely due to selection bias.

Prevention and Management of Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Tumor Treating Fields in Patients With Glioblastoma.

Importance: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are an anti-mitotic treatment approved for treating newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, and mesothelioma. TTFields in glioblastoma comprise alternating electric fields (200 kHz) delivered continuously, ideally for ≥18 h/day, to the tumor bed via transducer arrays placed on the shaved scalp. When applied locoregionally to the tumor bed and combined with systemic temozolomide chemotherapy, TTFields improved overall survival vs. temozolomide alone in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Improved efficacy outcomes with TTFields were demonstrated, while maintaining a well-tolerated and manageable safety profile. The most commonly-reported TTFields-associated adverse events (AEs) are beneath-array dermatologic events. Since survival benefit from TTFields increases with duration-of-use, prevention and management of skin AEs are critical to maximize adherence. This paper describes TTFields-associated dermatological AEs and recommends prevention and management strategies based on clinical trial evidence and real-world clinical experience. Observations: TTFields-associated skin reactions include contact dermatitis (irritant/allergic), hyperhidrosis, xerosis or pruritus, and more rarely, skin erosions/ulcers and infections. Skin AEs may be prevented through skin-care and shifting (~2 cm) of array position during changes. TTFields-related skin AE management should be based on clinical phenotype and severity. Depending on diagnosis, recommended treatments include antibiotics, skin barrier films, moisturizers, topical corticosteroids, and antiperspirants. Water-based lotions, soaps, foams, and solutions with minimal impact on electrical impedance are preferred with TTFields use over petroleum-based ointments, which increase impedance. Conclusions: Early identification, prophylactic measures, and symptomatic skin AE management help patients maximize TTFields usage, while maintaining quality-of-life and optimizing therapeutic benefit. Implications for practice: TTFields confer a survival benefit in patients with glioblastoma that correlates positively with duration of daily use. Skin events (rash) are the primary treatment-related AE that can limit duration of use. The recommendations described here will help healthcare professionals to recognize, prevent, and manage dermatologic AEs associated with TTFields treatment. These recommendations may improve cutaneous health and support adherence to therapy, both of which would maximize treatment outcomes.

Palliative and end-of-life care in glioblastoma: defining and measuring opportunities to improve care.

BACKGROUND: American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) quality measures for terminal cancers recommend early advance care planning and hospice at the end of life. We sought to evaluate adherence to 5 palliative care quality measures and explore associations with patient outcomes in glioblastoma. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 117 deceased glioblastoma patients over 5 years. Records were reviewed to describe adherence to palliative care quality measures and patient outcomes. Data regarding emotional assessments, advance directives, palliative care consultation, chemotherapy administration, hospice, location of death, and overall survival were collected. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 12.9 months. By the second oncology visit, 22.2% (26/117) had an emotional assessment completed. Advance directives were documented for 52.1% (61/117) by the third neuro-oncology visit (30/61 health care proxy), yet 26.5% (31/117) did not have any advance directive before the last month of life. With regard to other ASCO quality measures, 36.8% (43/117) had a palliative care consult; 94.0% (110/117) did not receive chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life; 59.8% (70/117) enrolled in hospice >7 days before death; and 56.4% (66/117) died in a home setting. Patients who enrolled in hospice >7 days before death were 3.56 times more likely to die in a home setting than patients enrolled <7 days before death or with no hospice enrollment (P = .002, [OR 3.56; 95% CI, 1.57-8.04]). CONCLUSIONS: Late advance directive documentation, minimal early palliative care involvement, and the association of early hospice enrollment with death in a home setting underscore the need to improve care and better define palliative care quality measures in glioblastoma.