scholarly journals P08.06 Clinical value scores for treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma with TTFields

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii38-iii38
Author(s):  
J Kelly ◽  
C Proescholdt

Abstract BACKGROUND High quality and value of recommended treatments is of specific importance in cancer care. ESMO, ASCO and NCCN have developed tools intended to help assessing the clinical value of cancer treatments in a standardised way, allowing for a comparative discussion. Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a novel, device based cancer treatment, that was recently demonstrated to be effective in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). This new modality augments the treatments discussed with glioblastoma patients today. MATERIAL AND METHODS ESMO and ASCO frameworks each calculate a score for the clinical value of a cancer treatment, called Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) by ESMO and the Net Health Benefit (NHB) by ASCO. NCCN self reports “evidence blocks” which are assessed by clinician panels and were recently published for the first line treatment of newly diagnosed GBM with TTFields. We apply and compare the ESMO, ASCO and NCCN tools for TTFields treatment of newly diagnosed GBM. RESULTS The resulting ASCO NHB score for TTFields treatment of newly diagnosed GBM is 56. ESMO MCBS scores for TTFields in GBM are resulting in A/5, these being the highest achievable scores for this framework. All frameworks value the increase in overall survival by TTFields and the moderate toxicity profile. ESMO additionally values quality of life, while ASCO values palliation and treatment free intervals. NCCN’s specific focus is on the quality and consistency of the evidence. NCCN evidence blocks also contain an affordability score. CONCLUSION All three frameworks consider the clinical efficacy of a treatment and it’s toxicity profile in their clinical value assessment. Beyond that, their respective focus is on slightly different aspects and their definition of clinical value therefore varies in detail. However, all value scores suggest that TTFields treatment of newly diagnosed GBM provides a substantial clinical benefit. The high ESMO and ASCO scores are based on the significantly extended progression free and overall survival for TTFields treated patients, without adding systemic toxicities. The NCCN evidence blocks strongly support the NCCN category 1 recommendation for the use of TTFields in newly diagnosed GBM.

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi43-vi44
Author(s):  
Ryan Miller ◽  
Andrew Song ◽  
Ayesha S Ali ◽  
Voichita Bar-Ad ◽  
Nina, L Martinez ◽  
...  

Abstract INTRODUCTION Current adjuvant treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma includes concurrent chemoradiation and maintenance temozolomide with Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields). We report our clinical trial evaluating feasibility and tolerability of scalp-sparing radiation with concurrent temozolomide and TTFields. METHODS Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with a KPS of ≥ 60 were eligible. All patients received concurrent scalp-sparing radiation (60 Gy in 30 fractions) with temozolomide (75 mg/m2 daily) and TTFields (200 kHz). Maintenance therapy included temozolomide and continuation of TTFields. Radiation treatment was delivered through TTFields arrays. The primary endpoint was safety and toxicity of tri-modality treatment within 30 days of completion of chemoradiation treatment. RESULTS Thirty patients were enrolled. Twenty were male and ten were female, with a median age of 58 years (range 19 to 77 years). Median follow-up was 10.8 months (range 1.6 to 21.3 months). Twenty (66.7%) patients had unmethylated MGMT promotor and ten (33.3%) patients had methylated promoter. Scalp dose constraints were achieved for all patients. Skin adverse events (erythema, dermatitis, irritation, folliculitis) were noted in 83.3% of patients, however, these were limited to Grade 1 or 2 events, which resolved spontaneously or with topical medications. No patient had radiation treatment interruption due to skin AEs. Other Grade 1 events included pruritus (33.3%), fatigue (30%), nausea (13.3%), headache (10%), dizziness (6.7%), and cognitive impairment (3.3%). Other Grade 2 events included headache (3.3%). The median PFS for the entire cohort was 9.1 months (at least 8.5 months, 95% confidence). The median PFS for patients with MGMT promoter methylation status was 11.4 months (at least 9.5 months, 95% confidence). Overall survival was not reached. CONCLUSIONS Concurrent TTFields with scalp-sparing chemoradiation is feasible treatment option with limited toxicity. Future randomized prospective trials are warranted to define therapeutic advantages of concurrent TTFields with chemoradiation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flóra John ◽  
Edit Bosnyák ◽  
Natasha L Robinette ◽  
Alit J Amit-Yousif ◽  
Geoffrey R Barger ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document