Skip to main content
Tag

Tumor Series Archives - Neurosurgery Blog

Surgically Based Clinical Trials for High-Grade Gliomas — Bringing the Laboratory to the Operating Room

By Tumor, Tumor SeriesNo Comments

For patients with aggressive, high-grade gliomas, clinical trials offer access to new experimental therapies studied for their effectiveness. Traditionally, clinical trials have been broken into three phases. Phase 1 clinical trials assess the safety of a new treatment. Phase 2 studies involve more patients and evaluate the efficacy of the treatment. Phase 3 studies are designed to compare the novel treatment to a proven treatment to validate its effectiveness further.

While most clinical trials for high-grade glioma patients study systemically administered chemotherapies managed by a neuro-oncologist, some high-grade glioma clinical trials are now surgically based. In these trials, tumor surgery plays more than its usual cytoreductive role. Examples of surgically based clinical trials include:

  • Trials in which biological information is obtained through the surgery;
  • Trials in which a therapy is derived from the surgical tissue; and
  • Trials in which the surgeon delivers a therapy at the time of the procedure.

The first example of obtaining biological information through the surgery consists of phase 0-like “window of opportunity” clinical trials, first in human studies in which a small number of patients are given a drug for a few days before surgery. Blood is drawn regularly before and during the surgery to obtain pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information, which helps determine how quickly a steady-state concentration of the drug within the tumor is achieved under the prescribed dosing regimen. Cerebrospinal fluid is obtained during surgery to determine whether the agent’s intracranial penetration achieves a steady state after a similar time as occurs systemically. Tumor tissue is analyzed to measure drug levels in the enhancing versus non-enhancing tumor, with levels often 3-4 times higher in the former than the latter, underscoring the difficulty of treating the non-enhancing tumor with systemic chemotherapy. Tumor tissue can also be analyzed for levels of the drug’s target protein and its downstream mediators to determine whether the drug affects the intended target in tumor tissue.

The second example of surgically based clinical trials typically involves immunotherapies in which a vaccine is developed from tumor tissue. The vaccine can be peptide-based — in which an immunostimulatory peptide-like heat shock protein is combined with tumor peptides — or a cellular vaccine in which immune cells like dendritic cells taken from the patient are primed with tumor peptides and then returned to the patient to provide antitumor immunity.

The third example involves the surgical administration of cellular, viral or pharmacologic therapies. These can be delivered into craniotomy walls after resection or directly into the tumor without resection. The advantages of delivering the therapy into craniotomy walls include combining the benefit of cytoreductive surgery with the therapeutic injection. In contrast, the disadvantages of delivering the therapy into the craniotomy walls include the reflux of the agents back into the resection cavity. Needle delivery into the tumor avoids reflux into the resection cavity, but reflux up the injection tract or adjacent cavities from previous surgery must be accounted for. The lack of cytoreductive surgery means needle delivery may be best for smaller focal tumors. Needle delivery into the tumor can be accomplished via direct needle delivery or convection-enhanced delivery involving infusion through a catheter along a pressure gradient over hours or days.

Neurosurgeons play a critical role in designing and developing surgically based clinical trials for high-grade glioma patients. Many of these trials have developed from neurosurgeon-scientists’ basic science research in laboratories using preclinical animal models. There is hope that these trials will lead to discoveries that meaningfully impact the prognosis of patients diagnosed with high-grade gliomas in the future.

Editor’s Note: We hope you will share what you learn from our posts. We invite you to join the conversation on Twitter by following @Neurosurgery and @NSTumorSection and using the hashtag #TumorSeries.

Manish K. Aghi, MD, PhD, FAANS
UCSF Dept. of Neurological Surgery
San Francisco, Calif.

Increasing Patient Access to Stereotactic Radiosurgery through Innovation

By Brain Tumor, Tumor, Tumor SeriesNo Comments

Neurosurgery supports and welcomes transparent physician-industry interactions to foster healthy relations and spur innovative device development to benefit patients. Within the specialty of neurosurgery, there are numerous examples of just such benefits, including increased access to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). SRS is a treatment that delivers radiation to precise targets in the brain, such as tumors, while minimizing injury to adjacent areas.

As part of the ongoing Neurosurgery Blog Tumor Series, Deborah L. Benzil, MD, FAANS, FACS, interviewed Stefan Vilsmeier, the CEO and founder of Brainlab. Mr. Vilsmeier discusses why he founded the company and how his software and hardware have increased neurosurgical patient access to SRS. Mr. Vilsmeier observed that many institutions created homegrown radiosurgery systems, but there were no commercially available options.

Brainlab created an innovative software and hardware for performing SRS to provide greater treatment access through standardization. Taking it a step further, Brainlab offers the Novalis Circle, a user group to ensure quality, and Novalis Certified Accreditation Program to promote the delivery of radiosurgery at a level of efficacy and safety commensurate with the highest standards of clinical practice.

The interviews are available here and on Neurosurgery Blog’s YouTube channel.

Part I: What is stereotactic radiosurgery?

Part II: Dr. Benzil’s interview with Mr. Vilsmeier

Editor’s Note: Ethical interactions between industry and health care professionals are essential to strengthening patient trust in the health care system. The Open Payments system, also known as the Sunshine Act, is a federal program that collects information about the payments drug and device companies make to physicians and teaching hospitals. The data the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services collect is published annually.  

We hope that you will share what you learn from our posts. We invite you to join the conversation on Twitter by following @Neurosurgery and @NSTumorSection and using the hashtag #TumorSeries.

Brain Tumors, Drug Development and Neurosurgeons: Ending the Losing Streak

By Brain Tumor, Tumor, Tumor SeriesNo Comments

For many neurosurgeons, years of training and technical refinement culminate in safely removing a patient’s brain tumor. We dedicate our careers to shepherding people past this inflection point, but the patient journey does not end there. For those with malignant tumors, our surgical heroics are quickly unraveled by tumor recurrence. Theoretically, adjuvant medical therapy should firewall patients against this reality; however, as we all know, no drug today provides much security to brain tumor patients. Our specialty is uniquely positioned to do something about this. Drug development is no longer the sole domain of oncologists, and some of the most impactful drug studies live in our operating rooms.

Conventional clinical trials are exercises in tremendous faith: an educated guess matches a patient to a new drug, followed by months of therapy (and side effects), ending with an MRI that provides, at best, an indirect measure of putative drug effect. For neurosurgical oncologists, Phase 0 and window-of-opportunity clinical trial paradigms offer a different take: brief, presurgical exposure to the experimental therapy, followed by a tumor resection that allows for direct measurement of drug penetration and target modulation in the patient’s own tissue. If the drug proves its worth in the patient’s tumor, the patient can remain on the drug long-term. In other words, safe and rapid quantification of drug effects in the end-user without sacrificing the one commodity all malignant brain tumor patients have in short supply — time.

It was nearly 20 years ago that the Food and Drug Administration last approved a new drug capable of extending high-grade brain tumor patients’ lives. Let that sink in for a moment, and allow yourself to question everything about it. This 20-year losing streak we are all living through is not happening for lack of effort or expertise. We are all aware of the unique challenges facing brain tumor drug development:

  • Poorly-predictive animal models;
  • Unclear tumor driver mutations;
  • Poorly brain-penetrant drugs;
  • Insufficient translational science funding;
  • Small market size; and
  • Patient risks from aggressive treatment.

These realities, and our accompanying track record, suggest that current systems governing oncology drug development should make way for a new paradigm — accelerated early-phase clinical trialing that quickly identifies and prioritizes drugs that deliver on their promise and, with equal analytical ruthlessness, eliminates those that do not.

Understanding the varied dimensions of drug development is a tall order for any specialty. But decades ago, ours made a concerted effort to expand the neurosurgeon-neuroscientist footprint. Today, an entire generation of us are as fluent in the laboratory as in the operating room. Drug development is our next frontier. For neurosurgeons like myself who are engaging in it, each patient’s operation has become a beginning instead of an end.

Editor’s Note: We hope you will share what you learn from our posts. We invite you to join the conversation on Twitter by following @Neurosurgery and @NSTumorSection and using the hashtag #TumorSeries.

Nader Sanai, MD, FAANS
Barrow Neurological Institute
Phoenix, Ariz.

Cross-Post: Brain Tumors in Children

By Brain Tumor, Pediatrics, Tumor, Tumor SeriesNo Comments

From time to time on Neurosurgery Blog, you will see us cross-posting pieces from other publications that are worthy of sharing with our readers. Since we are in the middle of our focus series on tumors, we wanted to bring attention to an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 19. Alan R. Cohen, MD, FACS, FAAP, FAANS, discusses recent changes to the classification and management of brain tumors in children. In 2021, the World Health Organization introduced changes in brain tumor taxonomy, emphasizing molecular diagnostic features. These changes reflect the trend of assigning diagnostic categories based on genetic features that, in many cases, drive prognosis and offer potential targets for treatment.

Brain tumors are the leading cause of death from cancer in children. Tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) account for 20% of childhood cancers and are second only to leukemia in frequency. Recent diagnostic and therapeutic advances have improved survival and quality of life for many children with CNS cancers. Sadly, however, the prognosis for many children with brain tumors remains poor.

Click here to read the full NEJM article.

To learn more about Dr. Cohen’s work as a pediatric neurosurgeon and how he uses humor (and Elvis) to bring joy to his patients and their families, check out this oldie but goodie from Good Morning America.

Editor’s Note: We hope that you will share what you learn from our posts. We invite you to join the conversation on Twitter by following @Neurosurgery and @NSTumorSection and using the hashtag #TumorSeries.

Alan R. Cohen, MD, FACS, FAAP, FAANS
Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Baltimore, Md.