Search

Objectives: Brain tumor-related epilepsy patients (BTRE) have a complex profile due to the simultaneous presence of two pathologies: brain tumor and epilepsy. That illness and their treatments could induce physical, cognitive, emotional disturbances, and possible social isolation, with detrimental effect on patients' quality of life (QoL). Aim of this observational pilot study is to evaluate whether a multimodal rehabilitation pathway (MRP) consisting of epileptological follow-up, neurocognitive training, emotional support, and social support could produce an improvement in perceived quality of life of 33 patients with BTRE., Materials and Methods: Basal (T0) and 6 month (T1) evaluation with epileptological, neuropsychological, psychological state (Symptom checklist-SCL-90), social (Social questionnaire schedule-SQS), and QoL assessment (QOLIE 31-P). MRP consisted in epileptological follow-up, supportive meeting groups, social assistance; patients with cognitive deficits could also obtain a 12-week neurocognitive training., Results: We observed at T1 significant improvements in mean seizure/month (P = .02), verbal memory (word list immediate recall, P = .01; word list delayed recall P = .003), social aspects with regard to assistencial network's efficacy (SQS network P = .001) and quality of social relations (SQS socialization P < .0001). QOLIE 31-P showed a significant improvement in cognitive scale (P = .04) and a significant decrease in cognitive related distress (P = .04). No psychopathological symptoms were detected., Conclusion: After 6 months, MRP produced significant improvements in seizure control, cognitive performances, quality of social relations, patients' perception to be supported and patients' perceived quality of life related to cognitive efficacy. Future randomized trial with longer follow-up is needed to further evaluate the impact of this kind of pathway on patients' QoL., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Possible loss of efficacy and potential interactions between antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and chemotherapy could complicate the management of patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) that may expose patients to an increased risk of adverse events. Perampanel (PER) is a highly selective, noncompetitive, alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA)-type glutamate receptor antagonist. This study evaluates the effectiveness, QoL, cognition, and mood of PER in add-on therapy in BTRE patients., Material and Methods: Observational pilot study on the effectiveness of PER as add-on therapy in BTRE patients with uncontrolled seizures with a 6-month follow-up., Results: We recruited 26 BTRE patients. During the follow-up, 16 underwent chemotherapy and 11 radiotherapy; 11 had disease progression. Five patients dropped out. Mean daily PER dosage was 6.6 mg in the 21 patients who completed the follow-up and 6.4 mg in the ITT population. The mean number of seizures/month decreased from 10.8 ± 15.03 at baseline to 1.7 ± 4.34 in the 21 patients who reached the final follow-up. Responder rate was 88.4%: Eight patients were seizure-free, 15 had ≥50% seizure reduction, and 3 remained stable. Four patients (15.4%) reported AEs: 2 required PER dose reduction, and 2 dropped out. Neuropsychological, mood, and QoL questionnaires were not statistically different compared to baseline. There were no significant differences in seizure control in patients with/without IDH1 mutation and with/without MGMT methylation., Conclusions: Perampanel proved to be effective on seizure control in BRTE patients and to be well tolerated without negative effects on cognition and QoL. Perampanel could be a valid therapeutic option in BTRE., (© 2020 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Epilepsy in brain tumors (BTE) may require medical attention for a variety of unique concerns: epileptic seizures, possible serious adverse effects of antineoplastic and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), physical disability, and/or neurocognitive disturbances correlated to tumor site. Guidelines for the management of tumor-related epilepsies are lacking. Treatment is not standardized, and overall management might differ according to different specialists. The aim of this document was to provide directives on the procedures to be adopted for a correct diagnostic-therapeutic path of the patient with BTE, evaluating indications, risks, and benefits. A board comprising neurologists, epileptologists, neurophysiologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, neuro-oncologists, neuropsychologists, and patients' representatives was formed. The board converted diagnostic and therapeutic problems into seventeen questions. A literature search was performed in September-October 2017, and a total of 7827 unique records were retrieved, of which 148 constituted the core literature. There is no evidence that histological type or localization of the brain tumor affects the response to an AED. The board recommended to avoid enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs because of their interference with antitumoral drugs and consider as first-choice newer generation drugs (among them, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and topiramate). Valproic acid should also be considered. Both short-term and long-term prophylaxes are not recommended in primary and metastatic brain tumors. Management of seizures in patients with BTE should be multidisciplinary. The panel evidenced conflicting or lacking data regarding the role of EEG, the choice of therapeutic strategy, and timing to withdraw AEDs and recommended high-quality long-term studies to standardize BTE care.

Introduction: Epilepsy occurs in 35-70% of patients with gliomas; glutamate plays a central role via AMPA-receptor activation, which is involved both in seizure activity and tumor growth. We conducted a retrospective study on brain tumor-related epilepsy patients (BTRE) treated with perampanel in add-on (PER) for 12 months, to evaluate efficacy and tollerability, according to real-life clinical practice., Materials and Methods: Medical records of eleven patients (9 males, mean age 54 years) with glioma and epilepsy treated with PER in add-on, for inadequate seizure control or adverse events (AEs) from previous antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) therapy, were reviewed. Data collected included: tumor history, molecular factors, systemic therapy, type and number of seizures and concomitant AEDs, and AEs., Results: After 12 months of PER therapy, five patients were seizure-free, 4 had a seizure reduction ≥50% and the seizure frequency was unchanged in 2 patients. Responder rate was 81.8%. Two patients reported AEs; PER dose was reduced only in the one case. The final median dose of PER was 7.3 mg/day. We didn't find statistically significant differences in the comparison between mean values pre, mean values post and the average of decreasing number of seizures related to: histology, presence/absence of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, progression disease, KPS, IDH1, MGMT., Discussion: Despite the limitations due to small number of patients in a retrospective study, the high rate of responder and seizure-free patients suggest that PER could be a therapeutic option in BTRE. Prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm our data.

Objective: Therapeutic doses of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may alter EEG background activity, which is considered an index of the functional state of the brain. Quantitative analysis (qEEG) of EEG background activity is a valid instrument to assess the effects of many centrally active drugs on the central nervous system, including AEDs. Lacosamide (LCM) is a new AED that could be a valid therapeutic choice in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE)., Methods: We used qEEG to analyze the possible effect of LCM as an add-on, on background EEG activity after 4 months in patients with BTRE., Results: We consecutively recruited sixteen patients with BTRE: Five dropped out for disease progression, five for scarce compliance, and six completed the study. For these reasons qEEG was performed at first visit and after 4 months only in six patients. For all frequency bands, LCM revealed no changes of mean relative power during rest with eyes closed, hyperpnoea (HP), and mental arithmetic task (MA); significant increment was found only in the theta mean relative power during opening and closing eyes (BR). After four months of therapy with LCM, one patient was seizure free, four had a seizure reduction ≥50%, and one showed a worsening in seizure frequency <50%., Conclusion: Despite the limitation of a small series, these findings suggest that LCM seems to have only a mild interference on EEG background activity and confirm that LCM has a good efficacy on seizure control in patients with BTRE. This is the first study that evaluates the effect of LCM on background EEG activity, using qEEG in BTRE patients. Future research in this area could include prospective studies with qEEG for a longer follow-up period to assess the impact of AEDs on brain functions in this particular fragile patient population., (© 2018 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is often drug resistant and patients can be forced to take polytherapy that can adversely affect their quality of life (QoL). Lacosamide (LCM) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) used as adjunctive therapy in patients with partial seizures with or without secondary generalization, with a favorable pharmacokinetic profile that seems to be effective and well tolerated. Therefore it represents a possible therapeutic choice for patients with BTRE. We propose a prospective study with a historical control group to evaluate the effect of LCM as add-on therapy on seizure control and quality of life in patients with BTRE. This study has been designed to test the superiority of Lacosamide over Levetiracetam as an add-on. We compared a prospective cohort of 25 patients treated with Lacosamide with a historical control group (n=19) treated with Levetiracetam as an add-on., Methods: We recruited 25 adult patients (M 18, F 7; mean age 41.9) affected by BTRE with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures treated with AED polytherapy. We added LCM as an add-on. Patients were evaluated at baseline, after 3months and at 6months. This population has been compared with a historical control group of 19 BTRE adult patients (M 13, F 6; median age 48.0, range: 28-70) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures treated with LEV as add-on. The patients underwent QoL, mood and adverse events tests (Adverse Event Profile-AEP) and evaluation of seizure frequency., Results: Twelve patients had high grade gliomas, and thirteen had low grade gliomas. During follow-up, thirteen patients underwent chemotherapy, three radiotherapy and five patients had disease progression. Nine patients had simple partial seizures, eight had complex partial seizures, and eight had secondary generalized seizures. Fifteen patients were in monotherapy and ten in polytherapy with AEDs. LCM was added up to reach the maximum dosage of 400mg/die (mean final dose 300mg/die). Four patients dropped out due to poor compliance and 1 for inefficacy. In the historical control group treated with LEV (mean final dose 2000mg/die) 12 patients had high-grade gliomas, and 7 had low grade gliomas. Thirteen patients were in monotherapy and 6 in polytherapy with AEDs. In the 22 patients evaluable of 25 patients treated with LCM, we observed at final follow-up 7 patients seizure free, 12 with a significant reduction of seizures≥50%, 2 stable and 1 patient with number of seizures increased. Mean seizure frequency at baseline compared with baseline period: the mean number of seizures significantly decreased from baseline (9.4) to final follow-up (1.2) (P=0.005). The Responder Rate was 86.4%. Comparing responder rate of 22 evaluable patients with LCM with responder rate of 19 patients with LEV we didn't observe significant differences (p=0.31). In our patients treated with LCM we didn't observe significant difference at 3 and 6months in QoL tests results; we observe a significant reduction in the mean score of Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Barthel Index (BI) between baseline and 6months of follow-up (KPS p=0.003; BI p=0.007). No clinical side effects were observed., Conclusion: Comparing the LCM with the historical group treated with LEV in add-on, we observed that LCM seems to have a higher clinical efficacy than LEV. In our patients, we did not observe any significant changes in QoL tests, indicating stability in all quality of life domains explored, despite the objective worsening in their functional status. Although this is a small series with a relatively short follow-up, our data indicates that LCM in add-on in patients with BTRE appears to be as effective as LEV in add-on, without impact on mood and quality of life., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Epilepsy heavily affects the quality of life (QoL) of patients with brain tumor because in addition to taking treatments for the oncological illness, patients are required to live with the long-term taking of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The AEDs' adverse effects are common in these patients and can negatively influence their perceptions of their QoL.We conducted an observational pilot study in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy to verify efficacy, tolerability, and impact on QoL and global neurocognitive performances of zonisamide (ZNS) in add-on., Materials and Methods: We recruited 13 patients (5 females, 8 males; mean age, 49.6 years) presenting uncontrolled seizures. At first visit and at final follow-up at 6 months, patients underwent neurological examination, evaluation of adverse events, and cognitive and QoL tests. A seizure diary was given., Results: Eight patients underwent chemotherapy, 3 underwent radiotherapy, and 5 had disease progression. Mean dosage of ZNS at final follow-up was 300 mg/d.Of 9 patients who reached the sixth month follow-up, the mean weekly seizure number before ZNS had been 3.2 ± 5.0, and at final follow-up, the mean weekly seizure number was 0.18 ± 0.41 (P = 0.05).Compared with baseline, we observed stability in all cognitive domains, except for verbal fluency that significantly worsened.Results on QoL tests showed that QoL remained unchanged over time, which could indicate that ZNS did not influence the patients' perceived QoL., Conclusions: Zonisamide as add-on in our patients seems to be well tolerated and efficacious in controlling seizures. Despite having limitations represented by the fact that our study is observational, with a small study population and a short follow-up period, our results confirm that when choosing an AED, in addition to efficacy, the drug's effect on patients' QoL also needs to be considered, especially for patients facing many psychosocial challenges, such as those with brain tumor-related epilepsy.

Purpose: Quantitative analysis of epileptiform discharges (EDs) before and after the initiation of an antiepileptic treatment is a useful tool to objectively documentate the efficacy of an antiepileptic drug (AED). Aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of levetiracetam (LEV) on EDs, monitored with ambulatory EEG (A/EEG), in a limited series of patients with generalized epilepsy., Methods: We performed 24h A/EEG recording in basal condition and at follow-up after LEV therapy in 21 adult epileptic patients. Eleven received LEV as monotherapy and 10 as add-on. For each patient we quantified total epileptic activity considering the following parameters: total number, total duration, maximal duration and median duration of EDs. Self-reported information on the effect of LEV on clinical seizures was also collected, to determine the electro-clinical correlation., Results: A high variability of the response to LEV was observed in the monotherapy group, without statistical differences for all the parameters investigated. A significant reduction of the total number of seizures (113.6 vs. 41.2; p=.01) was observed in patients in add-on therapy. The modifications of epileptiform EEG abnormalities did not necessarily correlate with the self-reported clinical impressions., Discussion: The quantification of EDs monitored by A/EEG provides a useful objective support for evaluating the neurophysiologic profile and the real efficacy of an antiepileptic treatment. In our patients LEV was able to significantly reduce the EDs only in add-on therapy. Further larger studies are necessary to clarify the effects of LEV on electro-clinical features of generalized epilepsy.

Objective: Medical management of brain tumor-related epilepsy is complicated by interactions between antiepileptic and chemotherapeutic drugs. We studied the effect of temozolomide therapy on the disposition of the new antiepileptic drugs topiramate (TPM) or oxcarbazepine (OXC)., Methods: Fifteen patients chronically treated with TPM or OXC in monotherapy starting a chemotherapeutic treatment with temozolomide were enrolled in the study, of which ten were available for the final analyses. Blood samples were collected before temozolomide treatment (T(0)), at its end (T(7)) and after further 1-3 weeks (T(14)-T(28)). For each patient, more than one treatment cycle was studied. Topiramate and OXC mono-10-hydroxy derivative (MHD) plasma concentrations were determined by hplc coupled with ion spray mass spectrometer (TPM) or ultraviolet (MHD) detection., Results: Mean TPM concentrations were 5.4 +/- 2.4 microg/ml at T(0) vs. 5.5 +/- 2.4 microg/ml at T(7) (n = 14), and 5.4 +/- 2.4 microg/ml at T(0) vs. 5.6 +/- 2.8 microg/ml at T(14)-T(28) (n = 14). Mean MHD concentrations were 16.4 +/- 7.6 microg at T(0) vs. 18.5 +/- 9.0 microg/ml at T(7) (n = 5), and 16.8 +/- 7.0 microg/ml at T(0) vs. 18.0 +/- 8.7 microg/ml at T(14)-T(28) (n = 8) (all comparisons not statistically significant; Student's t-test for paired samples)., Conclusion: Temozolomide treatment did not affect TPM plasma concentrations in chronically treated patients. Data for MHD in OXC-treated patients were similar, but, due to the small sample size, results should be interpreted cautiously.These findings confirm that TPM (and possibly OXC) are a reasonable choice of antiepileptic drug in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy.

Epilepsy is a common clinical problem in patients with brain tumours, strongly affecting patients' quality of life. Tumour-related seizures are often difficult to control, and the clinical picture is complicated by frequent interactions between antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and antineoplastic agents. We studied the safety and efficacy of levetiracetam (LEV), a new AED with a different pharmacological profile from traditional anticonvulsants, in 19 patients (6 females; age range 28-70 years, mean 48 years) with supratentorial gliomas and epilepsy. Seizure types were simple partial in four patients, complex partial in 4, complex partial with secondary generalization in 7, and generalized tonic-clonic in 4. LEV was added to the existing AED treatment on account of persisting seizures, and titrated at dosages of 1,000-3,000 mg/day. Patients were seen at the Outpatient's Centre every 1-3 months, and followed-up for 7-50 months (mean 25 months, median 20 months). At the end of the observation period, nine patients were seizure free (seizure free period ranging from 7 to 33 months, mean 16, median 12) and five patients reported an improvement in seizure-frequency from daily to weekly (n=1) or from weekly to monthly (n=3). Seizure frequency was unmodified in four patients and increased (from monthly to weekly) in one. No LEV-related adverse effects were observed. LEV plasma concentrations monitored in 12 subjects ranged from 11.9 to 82.1 microg/ml. Our preliminary open data indicate that add-on treatment with LEV in patients with brain tumours is safe and appears to be effective in reducing seizure frequency. Controlled studies on larger populations are warranted to confirm these open observations.

Purpose: We investigated, whether epileptic seizures (ES) as presenting symptom in adult patients with GBM are associated with better Overall Survival (OS) compared to ES presenting later during the course of GBM, and efficacy and safety of different antiseizure medications (ASMs).Methods: Retrospective consecutive cohort study of adults with GBM: 50 from Norway and 50 from Italy. We compared the time to changing ASM treatments. OS was investigated with a Cox regression model adjusted for time dependency.Results: Median follow-up was 17 months from GBM diagnosis. ES were the presenting symptom in 49 patients. All patients received ASM treatment. LEV was the first ASM in the majority of patients and the most effective at one year from the first prescription, (p = 0.004). Occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between LEV and other ASMs (p = 0.47). Poorer OS correlated with older age at GBM diagnosis, country and ASM therapy. A negative impact of ASMs on OS was observed for LEV in a univariate and multivariate analysis, and for VPA (only in multivariate analysis), even when adjusted for O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation status. Patients with ES as the onset symptom of GBM and patients who had first ES later had similar OS (p = 0.87).Conclusion: ES as the GBM debut symptom did not lead to a longer OS. LEV was a more effective ASM compared to other treatments with no differences regarding AEs between LEV and other ASMs. Surprisingly, in our patients LEV and VPA were associated with worse OS than other ASMs. This result should be interpreted with caution due to the retrospective nature of this study along with the many variables which may affect the outcome in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epilepsy is one of the most common symptoms of brain tumors. It is often drug resistant and generally worsen patients' quality of life (QoL). Brain tumors release glutamate among other mediators, contributing to seizures onset, and this is accompanied by an increased AMPA receptors' expression on neuronal cells' membrane. Perampanel (PER) is a relatively new antiseizure medication (ASM) that acts as a selective non-competitive AMPA receptors' antagonist. Given its mechanism of action, we aimed to evaluate through a prospective, observational study, the efficacy and safety of PER as an add-on treatment in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE). The study was called PERADET. Methods: Thirty-six adult patients (intention to treat population-ITT) affected by BTRE, with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures treated with 1–3 ASMs were recruited from four Italian epilepsy centers. Perampanel was added-on, titrated from 2 mg/day up to a maximum of 12 mg/day. Tumor history and therapy, type, and seizures frequency, previous ASMs were collected at 6 and 12 months. A battery of QoL tests were administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary endpoint was to assess the efficacy of PER by calculating the percent change in seizure frequency and the responder rate. The secondary endpoints were tolerability, retention rate at 12 months, and improvement in quality of life. Results: At the end of 12 months, 21 patients (per protocol population-PP) were available for evaluation. In this population the responder rate (percentage of patients who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency) was 90.4 with 33.3% of patients being seizure-free. In the ITT group the responder rate at the end of 12 months was 66.6 with 25% of patients being seizure free. PER was well tolerated (30.6% of patients experienced an adverse event, none was severe; three needed a treatment interruptions). Conclusions: Our study indicate that PER may be efficacious against BTRE as suggested by its mechanism of action and our current knowledge on mechanisms of brain tumor epileptogenicity. Trial Registration Number (TRN): (Prot. n° 0008872.25-06-2019); RS 919/17. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]