Chemoradiation treatment with or without concurrent tumor-treating fields (TTFields) therapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients in China.

Q2 Medicine
Liping Liang, Lingchao Chen, Chunxia Ni, Wenyin Shi, Zhirui Zhou, Shu Chen, Wenjia Zhu, Jiabing Liu, Xianxin Qiu, Wanzun Lin, Junyan Zhang, Zhiyong Qin, Yang Wang
{"title":"Chemoradiation treatment with or without concurrent tumor-treating fields (TTFields) therapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients in China.","authors":"Liping Liang, Lingchao Chen, Chunxia Ni, Wenyin Shi, Zhirui Zhou, Shu Chen, Wenjia Zhu, Jiabing Liu, Xianxin Qiu, Wanzun Lin, Junyan Zhang, Zhiyong Qin, Yang Wang","doi":"10.1186/s41016-025-00391-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) therapy and radiotherapy may have synergistic anti-glioma effect based on preclinical studies. The combination of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with TTFields therapy has noticeably attracted clinicians' attention. This study aimed to provide insights into the clinical outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who received either concurrent CRT and TTFields therapy or adjuvant TTFields therapy following CRT. The findings were based on a cohort of patients who were treated at Huashan Hospital (Shanghai, China).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed ndGBM patients' clinical outcomes who were treated at Huashan Hospital and received TTFields therapy. Patients were categorized into two groups: one group received adjuvant TTFields therapy after completing CRT (referred to as the A-TTF group), while the other received TTFields therapy concurrently with CRT and continued TTFields after treatment (referred to as the CA-TTF group). The study evaluated treatment efficacy and toxicities, comparing outcomes between the two groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. To mitigate confounding factors, efficacy was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, propensity score matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on the propensity score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 72 patients with ndGBM were included in the study. Among them, 41 patients received concurrent and adjuvant TTFields therapy in combination with CRT (CA-TTF group), and 31 patients received adjuvant TTFields therapy with temozolomide (A-TTF group). The median follow-up time was 18.0 months. No significant differences were observed in median PFS (14.2 vs. 15.0 months, P = 0.92) or OS (20.8 vs. 20.0 months, P = 0.92) between the CA-TTF and A-TTF groups. Skin toxicity was common, while manageable, with no significant difference between the two groups. Following IPTW adjustment, the hazard ratios for PFS and OS indicated a potential advantage for the CA-TTF group, although this difference was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Concurrent CRT and TTFields therapy emerged safe for newly diagnosed GBM patients. Although no significant survival differences were found between the CA-TTF and A-TTF groups, the potential benefit of concurrent TTFields warrants further investigation through large-scale clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":36700,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887109/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41016-025-00391-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) therapy and radiotherapy may have synergistic anti-glioma effect based on preclinical studies. The combination of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with TTFields therapy has noticeably attracted clinicians' attention. This study aimed to provide insights into the clinical outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who received either concurrent CRT and TTFields therapy or adjuvant TTFields therapy following CRT. The findings were based on a cohort of patients who were treated at Huashan Hospital (Shanghai, China).

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed ndGBM patients' clinical outcomes who were treated at Huashan Hospital and received TTFields therapy. Patients were categorized into two groups: one group received adjuvant TTFields therapy after completing CRT (referred to as the A-TTF group), while the other received TTFields therapy concurrently with CRT and continued TTFields after treatment (referred to as the CA-TTF group). The study evaluated treatment efficacy and toxicities, comparing outcomes between the two groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. To mitigate confounding factors, efficacy was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, propensity score matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on the propensity score.

Results: A total of 72 patients with ndGBM were included in the study. Among them, 41 patients received concurrent and adjuvant TTFields therapy in combination with CRT (CA-TTF group), and 31 patients received adjuvant TTFields therapy with temozolomide (A-TTF group). The median follow-up time was 18.0 months. No significant differences were observed in median PFS (14.2 vs. 15.0 months, P = 0.92) or OS (20.8 vs. 20.0 months, P = 0.92) between the CA-TTF and A-TTF groups. Skin toxicity was common, while manageable, with no significant difference between the two groups. Following IPTW adjustment, the hazard ratios for PFS and OS indicated a potential advantage for the CA-TTF group, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Concurrent CRT and TTFields therapy emerged safe for newly diagnosed GBM patients. Although no significant survival differences were found between the CA-TTF and A-TTF groups, the potential benefit of concurrent TTFields warrants further investigation through large-scale clinical trials.

中国新诊断的胶质母细胞瘤(GBM)患者的放化疗联合或不联合肿瘤治疗场(TTFields)治疗
背景:基于临床前研究,肿瘤治疗场(TTFields)治疗和放疗可能具有协同抗胶质瘤作用。放化疗(CRT)与TTFields联合治疗已引起临床医生的广泛关注。本研究旨在深入了解新诊断的胶质母细胞瘤患者接受CRT和TTFields治疗或CRT后辅助TTFields治疗的临床结果。研究结果基于在华山医院(中国上海)接受治疗的一组患者。方法:回顾性分析在华山医院接受TTFields治疗的ndGBM患者的临床结果。患者分为两组,一组在完成CRT后接受辅助TTFields治疗(称为A-TTF组),另一组在CRT的同时接受TTFields治疗,治疗后继续接受TTFields治疗(称为CA-TTF组)。该研究评估了治疗效果和毒性,比较了两组的结果。采用Kaplan-Meier法分析总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS)。为了减少混杂因素,使用Cox比例风险回归模型、倾向评分匹配和基于倾向评分的治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)来评估疗效。结果:共有72例ndGBM患者纳入研究。其中,41例患者接受同步和辅助TTFields联合CRT治疗(CA-TTF组),31例患者接受替莫唑胺辅助TTFields治疗(A-TTF组)。中位随访时间为18.0个月。CA-TTF组和A-TTF组的中位PFS(14.2个月vs 15.0个月,P = 0.92)和OS(20.8个月vs 20.0个月,P = 0.92)无显著差异。皮肤毒性很常见,但可以控制,两组之间没有显着差异。在IPTW调整后,PFS和OS的风险比表明CA-TTF组具有潜在的优势,尽管这种差异没有统计学意义。结论:同步CRT和TTFields治疗对于新诊断的GBM患者是安全的。虽然CA-TTF组和A-TTF组之间没有发现显著的生存差异,但并发TTFields的潜在益处值得通过大规模临床试验进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
224
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信