| Literature DB >> 22640600 |
Agnes V Tallet1, David Azria, Fabrice Barlesi, Jean-Philippe Spano, Antoine F Carpentier, Antony Gonçalves, Philippe Metellus.
Abstract
Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is an effective treatment in brain metastases and, when combined with local treatments such as surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery, gives the best brain control. Nonetheless, WBRT is often omitted after local treatment due to its potential late neurocognitive effects. Publications on radiation-induced neurotoxicity have used different assessment methods, time to assessment, and definition of impairment, thus making it difficult to accurately assess the rate and magnitude of the neurocognitive decline that can be expected. In this context, and to help therapeutic decision making, we have conducted this literature review, with the aim of providing an average incidence, magnitude and time to occurrence of radio-induced neurocognitive decline. We reviewed all English language published articles on neurocognitive effects of WBRT for newly diagnosed brain metastases or with a preventive goal in adult patients, with any methodology (MMSE, battery of neurcognitive tests) with which baseline status was provided. We concluded that neurocognitive decline is predominant at 4 months, strongly dependant on brain metastases control, partially solved at later time, graded 1 on a SOMA-LENT scale (only 8% of grade 2 and more), insufficiently assessed in long-term survivors, thus justifying all efforts to reduce it through irradiation modulation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22640600 PMCID: PMC3403847 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-7-77
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Neurocognitive impairment after WBRT as assessed by MMSE
| Study | N | Radiation scheme | Brain control | Assessment time | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of patients impaired | ||||||||
| 2month | 3mo | 6mo | 12mo | 18mo | ||||
| Regine et al., 2001 | 182 | 30 Gy/10 fractions/12 | Yes | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | NR |
| [ | | days (TCI) | No | 28 | 46 | | | |
| Shibamoto et al., 2008 [ | 92 | 40 Gy/20 fractions/33 days (TCI) | Yes | NR | 7.4 | 11 | 12 | 0 |
| Corn et al., 2008 [ | 92 | 37.5 Gy/15fractions/19 days (TCI) | Yes | 18 | 24 | 24 | 28 | 28 |
| No | 23 | 23 | 33 | 38 | 40 | |||
| Aoyama et al., 2007 [ | 41 | 30 Gy/10 fractions/12 days (TCI) | NR | 5 a | 16a | 16 a | 28 a | 40 a |
| | 2 b | 10 b | 14 b | 21 b | 21 b | |||
| | 5 c | 14 c | 16 c | 24 c | 24 c | |||
| Sun et al., 2011 [ | 340 | 30 Gy/15 fractions/19 days (PCI) | NR | NR | 36 | 28 | 23 | NR |
Only studies from which percentages of patients impaired on NCF could be extracted are reported in this table. WBRT = Whole Brain Radiation Therapy; TCI = Therapeutic Cranial Irradiation; PCI = Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation; NR = not reported; a = patients who underwent a 3-point decrease in MMSE; b = patients who underwent a decrease of MMSE ≤ 26; c = patients who underwent a 3-point decrease in MMSE, excluding those who return to their initial MMSE.
Time, NCF domain impaired, and incidence of NC impairment after WBRT
| Study | Radiation scheme | Nb | Assessment time | Domains impaired | Impairment definition | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of patients impaired | |||||||||
| 1 mo | 2 mo | 3 mo | 5 mo | 12 mo | |||||
| Sun et al., 2011 [ | PCI 30Gy/15 fr | 163 | | | | | | §HVLT | |
| | | | _ | _ | 45% | | 26% | Recall | |
| | | | | | 44% | | 32% | Delayed recall | |
| Meyers et al., 2004 [ | 30 Gy/ 10fr ± MGd | 401 | _ | _ | 31% | _ | | *Pegboard | >2 DS |
| | | | | | 7% | | | †COWA | >2 DS |
| | 30Gy/10fr alone | 208 | | | | | 48% | §HVLT | ≥ 4.5 DS |
| | | | | | | | 48% | †COWA | ≥ 4.5 DS |
| Chang et al., 2009 [ | SRS + WBRT (30 Gy/12 fractions) | 28 | | | 64% | 28% | | §HVLT | Drop ≥ 5 points |
| | | | | | 22% | | | Delayed recall | |
| | | | | | 11% | | | Delayed recognition | |
| Welzel et al., 2008 [ | TCI: 40Gy/20fr | 16 | 9% | | _ | _ | _ | §MCG | RCI (≥1score) |
| | | | 18% | 43% | | | | Overall cognitive decline | RCI (≥2/12 test scores) |
| | | | | 57% | _ | _ | _ | §AVLT | RCI (≥1score) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | PCI: 36Gy/18fr | 13 | 23% | | _ | _ | _ | §MCG | RCI (≥1score) |
| | | | 8% | 11% | | | | Overall cognitive decline | RCI (≥2/12 test scores) |
| | | | | 44% | | | | §AVLT | RCI (≥1score) |
| | | | | _ | | | |||
| Van Oosterhout et al., 1995 [ | PCI (30 Gy / 15 fractions) | 5 | 0 | | _ | 0 | _ | none | > ?DS |
| Komaki et al., 1995 [ | PCI (25 Gy / 10 fractions) | 11 | _ | _ | _ | _ | 0 | none | ≥ 1.5 DS |
| Wolfson et al., 2010 [ | PCI | | | | | | | | |
| | 25 Gy/10 fr | 131 | | | | | 62% | §HVLT, †COWA, ‡TMT-A and B | Decrease in at least one of the test (from baseline) (RCI) |
| | 36 Gy/18 fr | 67 | | | | | 85% | | |
| 36 Gy/twice-daily 24fr | 66 | 89% | |||||||
Only studies from which percentages of patients impaired on NCF could be extracted are reported in this table. PCI = Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation; MGd = Motexafin Gadolinium; *Pegboard: grooved pegboard test, examining motor speed and dexterity; †COWA: Controlled Oral Word Association, test examining verbal fluency; § HVLT: Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, examining immediate recall, delayed recall, and recognition; MCG: Medical College of Georgia Complex Figures, examining visual memory and visual construction (copy, immediate recall and delayed recall); AVLT: Auditory Verbal Learning Test, examining verbal memory; ‡TMT-A and B: trailmaking test A, examining visual-motor scanning speed, and B, examining executive functions.