Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 155–158 | Cite as

Application of tumor treating fields for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: understanding of nationwide practice patterns

  • Shearwood McClellandIII
  • Oluwadamilola Sosanya
  • Timur Mitin
  • Catherine Degnin
  • Yiyi Chen
  • Albert Attia
  • John H. Suh
  • Jerry J. Jaboin
Clinical Study

Abstract

Background

Tumor treating fields (TTF) harness magnetic fields to induce apoptosis in targeted regions. A 2015 landmark randomized phase III trial of newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients demonstrated TTF + temozolomide to be superior to temozolomide alone. Given these results, we sought to assess practice patterns of providers in TTF utilization for GBM.

Methods

A survey was administered to practices in the United States self-identifying as specializing in radiation oncology, medical oncology, neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, and/or neurology. Responses were collected anonymously; analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

A total of 106 providers responded; a minority (36%) were in private practice. Regarding case volume, 82% treated at least six high-grade gliomas/year. The provider most commonly certified to offer TTF therapy to GBM patients was the neuro-oncologist (40%), followed by the radiation oncologist (34%); 31% reported no TTF-certified physician in their practice. TTF users were more likely to have high volume, and be aware of TTF inclusion in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

More than 80% of TTF for GBM in the United States is performed by groups who treat at least six high-grade gliomas per year; unfortunately more than 30% were in practices bereft of anyone certified to offer TTF therapy. These results indicate that there remains fertile soil for TTF therapy nationwide to be introduced into practices for GBM treatment. Providers seeking to refer newly diagnosed GBM patients for TTF should seek out practices with TTF user-associated characteristics to ensure optimal access for their patients.

Keywords

Glioblastoma Tumor treating fields Neuro-oncology Radiation oncology National comprehensive cancer network guidelines 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Suh is a consultant for Chrysalis BioTherapeutics and the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Mitin receives research funding from Novocure. No other author has any conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.

References

  1. 1.
    Davies AM, Weinberg U, Palti Y (2013) Tumor treating fields: a new frontier in cancer therapy. Ann NY Acad Sci 1291:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stupp R, Wong ET, Kanner AA et al (2012) NovoTTF-100A versus physician’s choice chemotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma: a randomized phase III trial of a novel treatment modality. Eur J Cancer 48:2192–2202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2015) FDA approves expanded indication for medical device to treat a form of brain cancer (FDA Press Announcement No. 4658744). Retrieved from U.S. Food and Drug Administration website: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm465744.htm. Accessed 13 Jan 2018
  4. 4.
    Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner AA et al (2015) Maintenance therapy with tumor-treating fields plus temozolomide vs temozolomide alone for glioblastoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:2535–2543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner A et al (2017) Effect of tumor-treating fields plus maintenance temozolomide vs maintenance temozolomide alone on survival in patients With glioblastoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:2306–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mukherjee D, Zaidi HA, Kosztowski T et al (2010) Disparities in access to neuro-oncologic care in the United States. Arch Surg 145:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sherwood PR, Dahman BA, Donovan HS, Mintz A, Given CW, Bradley CJ (2011) Treatment disparities following the diagnosis of an astrocytoma. J Neurooncol 101:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pines JM, Penninti P, Alfaraj S et al (2017) Measurement under the microscope: high variability and limited construct validity in emergency department patient-experience scores. Ann Emerg Med.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.11.011 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. Census Bureau (2011) The Black Population: 2010. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017
  11. 11.
    McClelland S 3rd, Mitin TM (2018) The danger of applying the ProtecT trial to minority populations. JAMA Oncol 4:291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kesari S, Ram Z (2017) EF-14 Trial Investigators. Tumor-treating fields plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for glioblastoma at first recurrence: a post hoc analysis of the EF-14 trial. CNS Oncol 6:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation MedicineOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Biostatistics Shared ResourceOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyCleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations