DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT EFFECTS OF STANDARD AND HYPOFRACTIONATED RADIATION REGIMENS IN GLIOBLASTOMA PATIENTS

Authors

  • O. GLAVATSKYI State Institution "Romodanov Neurosurgery Institute, National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine", Kyiv, Ukraine
  • A. GRYAZOV State Institution "Romodanov Neurosurgery Institute, National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine", Kyiv, Ukraine
  • V. STULEY National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute", Institute for Applied Systems Analysis of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • A. LOESER University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • D. RADES University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • O. ZEMSKOVA State Institution "Romodanov Neurosurgery Institute, National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine", Kyiv, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/exp-oncology.2024.02.129

Keywords:

differential treatment effects, subgroup analysis, glioblastoma, hypofractionated radiation therapy

Abstract

Background. The identification of the subgroups with differential treatment effects (DTE) is important for decisionmaking in personalized treatment. The DTE analysis assists in identifying patients who are more likely to benefit from a particular treatment regimen. The aim of the study was to analyze DTE in terms of the survival of glioblastoma (GBM) patients in the groups of standard radiotherapy (SRT) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) by the multicluster modeling of homogenous groups while retaining the statistical characteristics of the overall primary study cohort. Patients and Methods. The cohort of 159 patients with newly diagnosed GBM stratified according to the radiotherapy regimen (HRT group (n = 110/69.2%); SRT group (n = 49/30.8%)) was evaluated retrospectively. Forty-eight subgroups (multiclusters) were created by enumerating all possible combinations of 5 significant covariates (age, sex, the radicality of the surgical resection, chemotherapy, and Karnofsky performance status) of the Cox model. The DTE for the cancerspecific survival (CSS) within 48 modeled multiclusters were studied by comparing the interpolated Weibull CSS curves according to the Kolmogorov — Smirnov test. Results. The findings showed that the SRT group was superior to the HRT group by CSS only in 3 of the modeled clusters presenting clinical scenarios with a non-radical tumor resection, no chemotherapy, and low Karnofsky functional status (≤ 70 scores) (Cluster 10: male aged < 60; Cluster 21: female aged ≥ 60; Cluster 22: male aged ≥ 60). Most of the studied clinical variants (45 of 48 multiclusters) did not demonstrate a significant difference when comparing the interpolated Weibull curves of the CSS for the SRT and HRT groups according to the Kolmogorov — Smirnov test (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions. We propose a novel multicluster modeling approach that addresses DTE in relatively small samples of GBM patients receiving SRT or HRT. This original analytical method can be taken into consideration while designing new well-powered prospective trials aimed at the subgroup analysis in GBM patients who will be most beneficial from personalized treatment strategies.

References

Alemayehu D, Chen Y, Markatou M. A comparative study of subgroup identification methods for differential treat- ment effect: Performance metrics and recommendations. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27:3658-3678. https://doi. org/10.1177/0962280217710570

Sies A, Demyttenaere K, Van Mechelen I. Studying treatment-effect heterogeneity in precision medicine through induced subgroups. J Biopharm Stat. 2019;29:491-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2019.1579220

Wang X, Piantadosi S, Le-Rademacher J, Mandrekar SJ. Statistical considerations for subgroup analyses. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:375-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2020.12.008

Liu P, Li J, Kosorok MR. Change plane model averaging for subgroup identification. Stat Methods Med Res. 2023;32:773-788. https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802231154327

Peng H, Deng J, Jiang S, Timmerman R. Rethinking the potential role of dose painting in personalized ultra-fractio- nated stereotactic adaptive radiotherapy. Front Oncol. 2024;14: 1357790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1357790

Dona Lemus OM, Cao M, Cai B, et al. Adaptive radiotherapy: next-generation radiotherapy. Cancers. 2024;16. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16061206

Fiorino C, Guckemberger M, Schwarz M, et al. Technology-driven research for radiotherapy innovation. Mol Oncol. 2020;14:1500-1513. https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12659

Schaff LR, Mellinghoff IK. Glioblastoma and other primary brain malignancies in adults: A review. JAMA. 2023;329:574-587. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.0023

Nabors LB, Portnow J, Ahluwalia M, et al. Central nervous system cancers, version 3.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18:1537-1570. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2020.0052

Wen PY, Weller M, Lee EQ, et al. Glioblastoma in adults: a Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and European So- ciety of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) consensus review on current management and future directions. Neuro Oncol. 2020;22:1073-1113. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noaa106

Weller M, van den Bent M, Preusser M, et al. EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18:170-186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-020-00447-z

Guo L, Li X, Chen Y, et al. The efficacy of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A meta-analysis. Cancer Radiother. 2021;25:182-190. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.canrad.2020.08.049

Chidley P, Shanker M, Phillips C, et al. Moderately hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with temozolomide for young and fit patients with glioblastoma: an institutional experience and meta-ana- lysis of literature. J Neurooncol. 2022;160:361-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04151-z

Gryazov AB, Glavatskyi OY, Chuvashova OY, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy of patients with glioblastoma: the first experience in Ukraine and prospects view. Ukr Neurosurg J. 2023;29:38-47. https://doi.org/10.25305/ unj.270580

Zemskova O, Glavatskyi O, Gryazov A, et al. Factors affecting the survival of patients with glioblastoma treated with standard and hypofractionated radiation regimens. Ukr J Radiol Oncol. 2023;31:362-377. https://doi.org/10.46879/ ukroj.4.2023.362-377

Bland JM, Altman DG. The logrank test. BMJ. 2004;328:1073. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1073

Lin TA, Sherry AD, Ludmir EB. Challenges, complexities, and considerations in the design and interpretation of late- phase oncology trials. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2023;33:429-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.007

Bouliotis G, Billingham L. Crossing survival curves: alternatives to the log-rank test. Trials. 2011;12:A137. https:// doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-S1-A137

Yang S, Lorenzi E, Papadogeorgou G, et al. Propensity score weighting for causal subgroup analysis. Stat Med. 2021;40:4294-4309. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9029

Stuart EA, Ackerman B, Westreich D. Generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations: Design and analysis possibilities. Res Soc Work Pract. 2018;28:532-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517720730

Tan X, Chang C-CH, Zhou L, Tang L. A tree-based model averaging approach for personalized treatment effect es- timation from heterogeneous data sources. Proc Mach Learn Res. 2022;162:21013-21036. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/38084268

Ling AY, Montez-Rath ME, Carita P, et al. An overview of current methods for real-world applications to genera- lize or transport clinical trial findings to target populations of interest. Epidemiology. 2023;34:627-636. https://doi. org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001633

Varadhan R, Wang S-J. Standardization for subgroup analysis in randomized controlled trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2014;24:154-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2013.856023

Burke JF, Sussman JB, Kent DM, Hayward RA. Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses.

BMJ. 2015;351:h5651. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5651

Dijkman B, Kooistra B, Bhandari M. Evidence-based surgery working group. How to work with a subgroup analysis.

Can J Surg. 2009;52:515-522. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20011190

Ballarini NM, Rosenkranz GK, Jaki T, et al. Subgroup identification in clinical trials via the predicted individual treatment effect. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0205971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205971

Priebe H-J. Problems of subgroup analysis in randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):186. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01105-8

Toms SA, Kim CY, Nicholas G, Ram Z. Increased compliance with tumor treating fields therapy is prognostic for im- proved survival in the treatment of glioblastoma: a subgroup analysis of the EF-14 phase III trial. J Neurooncol. 2019;141:467-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-018-03057-z

Georgescu M-M. Translation into clinical practice of the G1-G7 molecular subgroup classification of glioblastoma: comprehensive demographic and molecular pathway profiling. Cancers. 2024;16(2):361. https://doi.org/10.3390/ cancers16020361

Mongiardi MP, Pallini R, D’Alessandris QG, et al. Regorafenib and glioblastoma: a literature review of preclinical studies, molecular mechanisms and clinical effectiveness. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2024;26:e5. https://doi.org/10.1017/ erm.2024.8

Baviskar Y, Likonda B, Pant S, et al. Short-course palliative hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with poor- prognosis high-grade glioma: survival and quality of life outcomes from a prospective phase II study. Clin Oncol. 2023;35:e573-e581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2023.07.001

Maitre P, Gupta T, Maitre M, et al. Prospective longitudinal assessment of quality of life and activities of daily living as patient-reported outcome measures in recurrent/progressive glioma treated with high-dose salvage re-irradiation. Clin Oncol. 2021;33:e155-e165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2020.08.011

Downloads

Published

09.10.2024

How to Cite

GLAVATSKYI, O., GRYAZOV, A., STULEY, V., LOESER, A., RADES, D., & ZEMSKOVA, O. (2024). DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT EFFECTS OF STANDARD AND HYPOFRACTIONATED RADIATION REGIMENS IN GLIOBLASTOMA PATIENTS. Experimental Oncology, 46(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.15407/exp-oncology.2024.02.129

Issue

Section

Original contributions

Most read articles by the same author(s)