Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Neuro-Oncology 1/2010

Open Access 01.01.2010 | Invited Manuscript

The role of retreatment in the management of recurrent/progressive brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

verfasst von: Mario Ammirati, Charles S. Cobbs, Mark E. Linskey, Nina A. Paleologos, Timothy C. Ryken, Stuart H. Burri, Anthony L. Asher, Jay S. Loeffler, Paula D. Robinson, David W. Andrews, Laurie E. Gaspar, Douglas Kondziolka, Michael McDermott, Minesh P. Mehta, Tom Mikkelsen, Jeffrey J. Olson, Roy A. Patchell, Steven N. Kalkanis

Erschienen in: Journal of Neuro-Oncology | Ausgabe 1/2010

Abstract

Question

What evidence is available regarding the use of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases?
Target population
This recommendation applies to adults with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously been treated with WBRT, surgical resection and/or radiosurgery. Recurrent/progressive brain metastases are defined as metastases that recur/progress anywhere in the brain (original and/or non-original sites) after initial therapy.
Recommendation
Level 3 Since there is insufficient evidence to make definitive treatment recommendations in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases, treatment should be individualized based on a patient’s functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged. In this context, the following can be recommended depending on a patient’s specific condition: no further treatment (supportive care), re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy.
Question
If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes?
No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question.
Hinweise
Mario Ammirati, Charles S. Cobbs contributed equally as primary authors.

Rationale

Untreated brain metastases have a median survival of about 4 weeks with almost all patients dying from neurological rather than systemic causes [1]. The majority of studies which have compared different modalities for the treatment of brain metastases have focused on the management of newly diagnosed patients. The role of WBRT, surgical excision, SRS and chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases are addressed by other guideline papers in this series (Gaspar et al., Kalkanis et al., Linskey et al., and Mehta et al.).
For those individuals who survive long enough to experience recurrence/progression of previously treated brain metastases, no consensus on treatment exists. The overall objective of this guideline paper is to systematically review the existing data relevant to the treatment of patients who develop recurrent/progressive brain metastases after initial therapy and to provide recommendations based on this evidence.
The questions specifically addressed by this guideline paper are:
1.
What evidence is available regarding the use of WBRT, SRS, surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases?
 
2.
If WBRT is used in this setting, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes?
 

Methods

Search strategy

The following electronic databases were searched from 1990 to September 2008: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. A broad search strategy using a combination of subheadings and text words was employed. The search strategy is documented in the methodology paper for this guideline series by Robinson et al. [2] Reference lists of included studies were also reviewed.

Eligibility criteria

(a)
What evidence is available regarding the use of WBRT, SRS, surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases?
  • Published in English with a publication date of 1990 forward.
  • Patients with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases.
  • Fully-published primary studies (all study designs for primary data collection included; e.g., RCT, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, case–control studies or case series).
  • Any study evaluating the use of WBRT, SRS, surgical excision, or chemotherapy alone or in combination.
  • Number of study participants with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases >5 per study arm for comparative studies and >5 overall for non-comparative studies.
  • For studies evaluating interventions exclusively in patients with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases, baseline characteristics of study participants are provided by treatment group for comparative designs and overall for non-comparative studies. For studies with mixed populations (i.e., includes participants with conditions other than recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases), baseline characteristics are provided for the sub-group of participants with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases, and stratified by treatment group for comparative studies.
 
(b)
If WBRT is used, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes?
  • Published in English with a publication date of 1990 forward.
  • Patients with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases.
  • Fully-published peer-reviewed primary studies (all study designs for primary data collection included; e.g., RCT, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, case–control studies or case series).
  • Any study evaluating the outcome(s) of WBRT by tumor histopathology (or primary tumor type).
  • Number of study participants with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases >5 per study arm for comparative studies and >5 overall for non-comparative studies.
  • For studies evaluating the outcome(s) of WBRT by histopathology (or primary tumor type) exclusively in patients with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases, baseline characteristics are presented and stratified by histologic/primary tumor group. For studies with mixed populations (i.e., includes participants with conditions other than recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases), baseline characteristics are presented and stratified by histologic/primary tumor group for the sub-group of participants with recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases.
 

Study selection and quality assessment

Two independent reviewers evaluated citations using a priori criteria for relevance and documented decisions in standardized forms. Cases of disagreement were resolved by a third reviewer. The same methodology was used for full text screening of potentially relevant papers. Studies which met the eligibility criteria were data extracted by one reviewer and the extracted information was checked by a second reviewer. The PEDro scale [3, 4] was used to rate the quality of randomized trials. The quality of comparative studies using non-randomized designs was evaluated using eight items selected and modified from existing scales.

Evidence classification and recommendation levels

Both the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded according to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS)/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) criteria. These criteria are provided in the methodology paper accompanying this guideline series.

Guideline development process

The AANS/CNS convened a multi-disciplinary panel of clinical experts to develop a series of practice guidelines on the management of brain metastases based on a systematic review of the literature conducted in collaboration with methodologists at the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center.

Scientific foundation

What evidence is available regarding the use of WBRT, SRS, surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases?
In total, 30 studies met the eligibility criteria for this question (Fig. 1). Of these studies, three evaluated the use of WBRT [57], four addressed the role of surgical resection [811], 13 reported on the use of radiosurgery [1224] and 10 evaluated chemotherapeutic agents [2534] for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases. The details of each are outlined in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4.
Table 1
Re-irradiation with WBRT for recurrent/progressive brain metastases
First author (Year)
Study design/evidence class
Intervention (# pts)
Population/previous treatment
Median survival
# Pts with recurrence/progression after retreatmenta
Median time to recurrence/progression after retreatment
Cooper [5] (1990)
Case series
WBRT (n = 52)
Recurrent/progressive BM
Median: NR
NR
NR
Evidence class III
Mean survival: 22.4 weeks
Initial treatment: WBRT
Sadikov [6] (2007)
Case series
WBRT (n = 72)
Recurrent/progressive BM
4.1 months
NR
NR
Evidence class III
Initial treatment: WBRT
Wong [7] (1997)
Case series
WBRT (n = 86)
Recurrent/progressive BM
4.0 months
NR
NR
Evidence class III
Initial treatment: WBRT
BM Brain metastases, NR Not reported, Pts Patients, WBRT Whole-brain radiation therapy
aNumber of pts with recurrence/progression of brain metastases, unless otherwise specified
Table 2
Surgical resection for recurrent/progressive brain metastases
First author (Year)
Study design/evidence class
Intervention (# pts)
Population/previous treatment
Median survival
# Pts with recurrence/progression after retreatmenta
Median time to recurrence/progression after retreatment
Arbit [8] (1995)
Case series
Surgery (n = 32)
Recurrent BM from NSCLC
10 months
NR
NR
Evidence class III
Initial treatment included surgical resection
Bindal [9] (1995)
Case series
Surgery (n = 48)
Recurrent BM
11.5 months
At original site only: 18/48 (38%)
Overall in brain: 7.7 months
Initial treatment: surgical resection ± WBRT
Evidence class III
At distant brain site only: 3/48 (6%)
At original + distant sites: 5/48 (10%)
Overall in brain: 26/48 (54%)
Truong [10] (2006)
Case series
Surgery (n = 32)
Recurrent/progressive BM
8.9 months
At original site: 9/32 (28%)
At original site: 6.2 months
Evidence class III
BM had been previously treated with SRS (either as initial or salvage treatment)
Vecil[11] (2005)
Case series
Surgery (n = 61)
Recurrent/progressive ≤3 BM
11.1 months
At original site only: 4/61 (7%)
Overall in brain: 5 months
Evidence class III
At distant brain site only: 19/61 (31%)
At distant sites in brain: 8.4 months
Initial treatment: SRS
At original + distant sites: 9/61 (15%)
At original site: Median: could not be estimated
BM Brain metastases, NR Not reported, NSCLC Non-small cell lung cancer, Pts Patients, SRS Stereotactic radiosurgery, WBRT Whole-brain radiation therapy
aNumber of pts with recurrence/progression of brain metastases, unless otherwise specified
Table 3
SRS for recurrent/progressive brain metastases
First author (Year)
Study design/evidence class
Intervention (# pts)
Population/previous treatment
Median survival
# Pts with recurrence/progression after retreatmenta
Median time to recurrence/progression after retreatment
Akyurek [12] (2007)
Case series
SRS (n = 15)
Recurrent/progressive BM from breast cancer
14 months
At original site: 1 year local
NR
Evidence class III
Control rate: 77%
At distant brain sites: 1 year distant control rate: 57%
Initial BM treatment: WBRT
Chen [13] (2000)
Case series
SRS (n = 45)
Recurrent/progressive BM
28 weeks
Local control (by lesion for 84% of lesions with data): 90%
NR
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment included SRS ± WBRT
1 year freedom from tumor progression: 94%
Combs [14] (2004)
Case series [For the recurrent group (G3) only]
SRS for recurrent BM (n = 39)
Recurrent/progressive BM from breast cancer
19 months
NR
At original sites: 9 months
At distant brain sites: 7 months
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment: WBRT
Davey [15] (2007)
Retrospective cohort study with historical controls
G1: SRS (n = 35)
Recurrent/progressive BM
G1: 16 weeks
NR
NR
G2: Fractionated SRS (2 fractions) (n = 69)
G2: 30 weeks (Survival curves: log-normal; univariate p = 0.0155)
Initial BM treatment included WBRT
Evidence class III
Davey [16] (1994)
Prospective single arm phase I/II trial
SRS (n = 12 pts)
Recurrent/progressive BM
6 months
# pts with local recurrence: 9/12 (75%)
NR
Initial BM treatment: WBRT
Radiological response at 4 weeks (by lesion): Complete response 3/19 (16%)
Evidence class III
Partial response 6/19 (32%)
No change 10/19 (53%)
Progression 0/19
Hoffman [17] (2001)
Case series [For the recurrent group (G3) only]
SRS for recurrent BM (n = 53)
Recurrent/progressive BM from lung cancer
10.0 months
1 year freedom from LR rate: 36%
At original site: 9.2 months
At distant site: 16.5 months
1 year freedom from DR rate: 55%
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment: WBRT
Overall in brain: 5.8 months
1 year freedom from any intracranial recurrence: 27%
Kwon [18] (2007)
Case series
SRS (n = 43)
Recurrent/progressive BM
32 weeks
6 month local control rate: 91%
NR
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment included SRS
6 month overall brain control rate: 86%
Loeffler [19] (1990)
Case series
SRS (n = 18)
Recurrent/progressive BM
NR
At original site: # of lesions that decreased or stabilized: 21/21 (100%)
NR
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment: WBRT ± surgery (except in 1 pt who refused WBRT)
Noel [20] (2003)
Case series [For the recurrent group (G3) only]
SRS for recurrent group(n = 36)
Recurrent/progressive BM
8 months
1 year local control rate: 86%
Overall in brain: Median: not reached
Initial BM treatment: WBRT
Evidence class III
Noel [21] (2001)
Case series
SRS (n = 54)
Recurrent/progressive BM
7.8 months
1 year local control rate (by lesion): 91%
Median time to development of new BM or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis: 24.5 months
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment: WBRT
1 year overall brain control rate: 65%
Sheehan [22] (2005)
Case series
SRS (n = 27)
Recurrent/progressive BM from SCLC
4.5 months
Local tumor control (Of 21 lesions in 14 pts with data): 17/21 (81%) lesions; 12/14 (86%) pts
NR
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment included WBRT
Shuto [23] (2004)
Case series
SRS (n = 16)
Recurrent/progressive BM
22.4 months (from 1st SRS treatment)
Tumor response:[Of 173/242 (72%) lesions with data]: Complete response 121/173 (70%)
NR
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment included SRS
Partial response or no change 47/173 (27%)
Progression 5/173 (3%)
Yamanaka [24] (1999)
Case series
SRS (n = 41)
Recurrent/progressive BM
15 months (from first SRS treatment)
Overall local control rate after 2nd SRS (by lesion): 93%
NR
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment included SRS
Response after 2nd SRS [Of 61 lesions evaluable]: Disappeared 16/61 (26%)
Decreased 40/61 (66%)
Unchanged 1/61 (2%)
Increased 4/61 (7%)
BM Brain metastases, BR Brain recurrence (local + distant), DR Distant recurrence in brain, G1 Group 1, G2 Group 2, LR Local recurrence at original site in brain, NSCLC Non-small cell lung cancer, NR Not reported, PR Partial response, Pts Patients, SCLC Small cell lung cancer
aNumber of pts with recurrence/progression of brain metastases, unless otherwise specified
Table 4
Chemotherapy for recurrent/progressive brain metastases
First author (Year)
Study design/evidence class
Intervention (# pts)
Population/previous treatment
Median survival
# Pts with recurrence/progression after retreatmenta
Median time to recurrence/progression after retreatment
Abrey [25] (2001)
Prospective single arm phase II trial
TMZ (n = 41)
Recurrent/progressive BM
6.6 months
Response in brain: Complete response 0/41 (0%)
Overall in brain: 1.97 months
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment varied (all received WBRT ± other modalities)
Partial response 2/41 (5%)
Stable disease 15/41 (37%)
Progressive disease 17/41 (42%)
Not assessed 7/41 (17%)
Bröcker [26] (1996)
Prospective single arm study
WBRT + fotemustine (n = 13)
Progressive multiple BM from melanoma
Overall: Not reported
Response in brain: (12 evaluable pts)
NR
Evidence class III
Pts with partial response/stable disease: 6 months
Complete response: 0/13 (0%)
Partial response 4/13 (31%)
Stable disease 3/13 (23%)
Other pts: 2 months
Progressive disease 6/13 (46%)
Not assessable: 1/13 (8%)
Christodoulou [27] (2005)
Prospective single arm phase II trial
TMZ + cisplatin (n = 32)
Recurrent/progressive BM
5.5 months
Response both in brain + extra-cranial sites: Complete response 1/32 (3%)
Median time to progression for all pts: 2.9 months
Evidence class III
Partial response 8/32 (25%)
Partial response in brain only 1/32 (3%)
Stable disease 5/32 (16%)
Progressive disease 6/32 (19%)
Not evaluable 11/32 (34%)
Feun [28] (1990)
Case series
Intracarotid cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 23)
Recurrent/progressive BM from melanoma
Median: Not reported
Objective improvement by CT scan 7/23 (30%)
Median time to progression in responding pts: 20 weeks
Evidence class III
Range: 1 to 65 weeks
Initial BM treatment included WBRT in 22/23 pts
Stable disease 3/23 (13%)
Failed to respond 13/23 (57%)
Giorgio [29] (2005)
Prospective single arm phase II trial
TMZ (n = 30)
Recurrent or progressive BM from NSCLC
6 months
Response in brain: Complete response 2/30 (7%)
Median time to progression of brain metastases in all pts: 3.6 months
Evidence class III
Previous BM treatment: WBRT and chemotherapy for BM
Partial response 1/30 (3%)
Stable disease 3/30 (10%)
Progressive disease 24/30 (80%)
Groen [30] (1993)
Prospective single arm study
Carboplatin (n = 20)
Recurrent/progressive BM from SCLC
15 weeks
Response in brain: Complete response 2/20 (10%)
Median duration of response: 8 weeks
Evidence class III
Initial BM with teniposide, reinduction combination chemotherapy or cranial irradiation
Partial response 6/20 (30%)
Stable disease 4/20 (20%)
Progressive disease 4/20 (20%)
Clinically determined progressive disease 4/20 (20%)
Hwu [31] (2005)
Prospective single arm phase II trial
TMZ + thalidomide (n = 26)
Recurrent/progressive BM from melanoma
5 months
Response in brain: Complete response 2/26 (8%)
Median duration of response or stable disease in brain: 4 months
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment varied
Chemotherapy-naive patients
Partial response 1/26 (4%)
Minor response/stable: 7/26 (27%)
Progressive disease: 4/26 (15%)
Unknown 1/26 (4%)
Not assessable 11/26 (42%)
Iwamoto [32] (2008)
Prospective single arm phase II study
TMZ + vinorelbine (n = 38)
Recurrent/refractory BM
5 months
Response in brain: Objective response 5% (CR 1/38; minor response 1/38)
Median progression free survival: 1.9 months
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment varied
Stable disease 5/38 (13%)
Progressive disease 29/38 (76%)
Not evaluable 2/38 (5%)
Kaba [33] (1997)
Prospective single arm study
TPDC-FuHu (n = 97 assessable/115 enrolled)
Recurrent/progressive BM
25 weeks
Response in brain: Complete response 4/97 (4%)
Median time to progression for all pts: 12 weeks
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment: surgery and/or radiation therapy
Partial response 14/97 (14%)
Minor response 9/97 (9%)
Stable disease 25/97 (26%)
Progressive disease 45/97 (46%)
Omuro [34] (2006)
Prospective single arm phase I trial
TMZ + vinorelbine (n = 21)
Recurrent/progressive BM
17 weeks
Response in brain: (Of 18 evaluable pts)
NR
Evidence class III
Initial BM treatment varied
Partial response 1/18 (6%)
Minor response 1/18 (6%)
Stable disease 6/18 (33%)
Progressive disease 10/18 (56%)
BM Brain metastases, NSCLC Non-small cell lung cancer, NR Not reported, NS Not significant, Pts Patients, SCLC Small cell lung cancer, TMZ Temozolomide, TPDC-FuHu Hydroxyurea, WBRT Whole-brain radiation therapy
aNumber of pts with recurrence/progression of brain metastases, unless otherwise specified
No class I or II evidence was identified that specifically addressed the question of which therapies (i.e., repeated WBRT, SRS, surgery or chemotherapy) were beneficial in the setting of recurrent/progressive metastatic brain. In fact, only one of the 30 included studies compared different modalities for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases [15]. The remaining 29 papers provide non-comparative outcome data on the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases.

WBRT

Three case series addressed the question of whether re-administration of WBRT was beneficial for patients in whom previously treated brain metastases recurred/progressed [57] (Table 1). These studies are retrospective analyses of 52, 72 and 86 patients, respectively, and they offer only very limited data as to whether patients died from neurologic causes versus systemic disease progression. The average re-irradiation dose for these patients was in the range of 20–25 Gy over multiple fractions. The post-re-irradiation median survival was 4 or 5 months in all of the series.
In the largest of the case series (n = 86), 70% of patients had either complete or partial resolution of neurological symptoms following re-irradiation. In the two other case series, the percentage of patients whose neurologic function improved following re-irradiation was 42% and 31%, respectively [5, 6].
One patient experienced symptoms of dementia attributed to radiation therapy in each of the two series reporting information on longer term adverse effects [6, 7].
No studies were identified that evaluated the use of WBRT in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases for patients whose initial management did not include WBRT.

Surgical resection

Four cases series addressed the use of surgical resection for recurrent/progressive brain metastases [811], as outlined in Table 2. Two of these retrospective studies reported outcomes for patients who underwent surgical resection for recurrent/progressive brain metastases who also had previously been treated with SRS ± WBRT [10, 11]. In the study by Vecil et al. 61 patients with three or fewer recurrent brain metastases underwent surgical resection for at least one index brain metastasis [11]. Treatment of non-index brain metastases varied. Major surgical complications occurred in seven patients. From the date of resection, median survival was 11.1 months and median time to any recurrence in the brain was 5 months. Cause of death was neurologic in 15% of patients and neurologic/systemic combined in 34%. The second study, conducted by Truong et al., included 32 patients who had previously been treated with SRS and who had MRI and/or clinical evidence of brain metastasis progression. To be considered for surgical resection, patients needed to have a KPS ≥60 and stable or absent systemic disease. Median survival from the time of resection was 8.9 months. Seven patients experienced surgical complications. Cause of death was neurologic in 48% of patients [10].
Two case series evaluated the outcome of re-operation for recurrent brain metastases [8, 9]. Bindal et al. reported on 48 patients who had surgical resection of a brain metastasis as part of their initial treatment and then underwent resection for recurrent disease. From the time of re-operation, median survival was 11.5 months and the median time to recurrence was 7.7 months. Of the 26 patients who developed a second recurrence, 17 underwent another surgical resection. For the 25 patients in which cause of death was known, it was neurologic in 48% and combined neurologic/systemic in 12% [9]. As part of a larger study, Arbit et al., provide retrospective data on 32 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent re-operation for recurrent brain metastases. From the date of re-operation, median survival was 10 months. Time to recurrence/progression was not reported [8].

SRS

Thirteen studies addressed the role of SRS for recurrent/progressive brain metastases [1224]. Nine studies evaluated the use of SRS for recurrent/progressive disease in patients whose initial management included WBRT [12, 1417, 1922]. One of these studies was prospective [16]. This single-arm phase I/II study enrolled 12 patients whose life expectancy was ≥3 months and who had both clinical and radiologic evidence of brain metastases progression following treatment with WBRT. All patients were followed to recurrence at the SRS treated site or until death. In total, 20 brain metastases in the 12 patients were treated by radiosurgery. From the date of SRS treatment, median survival was 6 months. Nine patients developed evidence of progressive disease at SRS treated sites. Time to progression was not reported. Of the other eight studies that addressed the role of SRS for recurrent disease in patients whose upfront treatment included WBRT, four specifically evaluated SRS treatment for recurrent/progressive brain metastases from particular primary tumor types–breast cancer (2 case series [12, 14]), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (1 case series [22]) and lung cancer, predominantly NSCLC (1 case series [17]). See Table 3 for details.
The only comparative study that met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review evaluated single-dose SRS versus split-dose (2 dose) SRS for recurrent/progressive disease in 104 patients whose initial management included WBRT [15]. In this retrospective cohort study with historical controls, median survival was significantly longer for patients who received split-dose SRS compared to single-dose SRS (30 vs. 16 weeks; p = 0.015). Time to recurrence/progression was not reported.
Four case series evaluated the use of SRS for recurrent/progressive brain metastases in patients whose previous treatment included radiosurgery [13, 18, 23, 24], as outlined in Table 3. Only two of these case series provide survival data from the date of SRS for recurrent disease [13, 18]. In the series by Kwon et al., of 43 patients who underwent salvage SRS, median survival from the time of SRS for recurrent/progressive disease was 32 weeks and the local control rate at 6 months was 91% [18]. In the case series by Chen et al., of 45 patients, median survival from the time of SRS for recurrent brain metastases was 28 weeks [13]. The 1 year freedom from progression rate was 94%.

Chemotherapy

Ten studies evaluated the role of chemotherapy in patients with recurrent/progressive metastatic brain disease [2534]. Of these, five are prospective single arm phase II studies [25, 27, 29, 31, 32] and five are case series [26, 28, 30, 33, 34]. Refer to Table 4 for details. The agents used in these studies varied from intracarotid administration of cisplatin, to temozolomide alone or with thalidomide, vinorelbine, fotemustine or cisplatin. Five of the studies investigated the role of chemotherapy specifically for patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases from particular primary tumor types—melanoma (3 studies) [26, 28, 31], NSCLC (1 study) [29], and SCLC (1 study) [30].
Median survival in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases treated with chemotherapy ranged from 3.5 to 6.6 months [2534]. The median time to recurrence after retreatment with chemotherapy in these studies ranged from 2 to 4 months. These studies indicate that some patients with recurrent or progressive brain metastases will have an objective radiographic response and/or improvement in functional status after treatment with chemotherapy.
If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent and/or progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes?
No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question.

Discussion and conclusions

No studies that provide class I or II evidence were identified which met the eligibility criteria and specifically addressed the question of which adjuvant therapies (i.e., WBRT, SRS, surgical resection or chemotherapy) are beneficial in the setting of recurrent/progressive metastatic brain tumors. Furthermore, all but one of the included studies that provide class III evidence on this topic are non-comparative. While multiple randomized clinical trials have examined the benefits for up-front combined therapies (e.g., WBRT plus SRS, WBRT plus surgery), none have been performed specifically to address the question of the benefits of further SRS, surgery or chemotherapy in cases of recurrent/progressive brain metastases. Therefore, no level 1 or level 2 recommendations can be made.
Given that none of the included studies compared the different modalities (WBRT, SRS, surgical resection or chemotherapy) for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, the relative merits of one approach versus another are yet to be determined. Furthermore, retrospective studies of patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously undergone WBRT, and then received subsequent re-irradiation, show conflicting results with regard to neurologic improvement and quality of life.
It is recommended that treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases be individualized based on functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer. In this context, re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy, can be recommended depending on a patient’s specific condition and based on the judgment of the patient’s treating physician.
As no studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for the question addressing whether tumor histopathology impacts treatment outcomes when WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, no evidence-based recommendations can be made on this topic.

Key issues for further investigation

This systematic review of the evidence highlights the critical need for comparative studies that directly evaluate the outcome of different treatment modalities for patients with recurrent/progressive metastatic brain disease, while simultaneously addressing the role of tumor histopathology in treatment outcomes. In addition, understanding potential differences in the mode of death (neurologic versus systemic progression), will help answer the important question of whether treating recurrent/progressive lesions delays neurologic progression long enough to allow more aggressive therapy for the primary systemic disease.
Moreover, specific patient characteristics offer important clinical variables in evaluating treatment for recurrent/progressive metastases, such as if the recurrence/progression occurs at the site of the primary focal treatment (surgery or SRS) and if it is clinically symptomatic or discovered because of routine surveillance neuroimaging. Indeed, as the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases is undertaken primarily with palliative intent, it is important to stress which symptoms these treatments are poised to address and how overall patient quality of life is going to be affected by any re-treatment modality.
No ongoing or recently closed randomized clinical trials addressing the re-treatment of patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases were found that met the eligibility criteria.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the McMaster Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Dr. Parminder Raina (Director). Dr. Lina Santaguida (Co-Associate Director, Senior Scientist) led the EPC staff, which was responsible for managing the systematic review process, searching for and retrieving, reviewing, data abstraction of all articles, preparation of the tables and the formatting and editing of the final manuscripts. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Roxanne Martinez in preparing this manuscript.

Disclaimer of liability

The information in these guidelines reflects the current state of knowledge at the time of completion. The presentations are designed to provide an accurate review of the subject matter covered. These guidelines are disseminated with the understanding that the recommendations by the authors and consultants who have collaborated in their development are not meant to replace the individualized care and treatment advice from a patient’s physician(s). If medical advice or assistance is required, the services of a competent physician should be sought. The proposals contained in these guidelines may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. The choice to implement any particular recommendation contained in these guidelines must be made by a managing physician in light of the situation in each particular patient and on the basis of existing resources.

Disclosures

All panel members provided full disclosure of conflicts of interest, if any, prior to establishing the recommendations contained within these guidelines.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by-nc/​2.​0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

e.Med Neurologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Neurologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes, den Premium-Inhalten der neurologischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Neurologie-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Literatur
1.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Robinson PD, Kalkanis SN, Linskey ME, Santaguida PL (2009) Methodology used to develop the AANS/CNS management of brain metastases evidence-based clinical practice parameter guidelines. J Neurooncol. doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0059-2 Robinson PD, Kalkanis SN, Linskey ME, Santaguida PL (2009) Methodology used to develop the AANS/CNS management of brain metastases evidence-based clinical practice parameter guidelines. J Neurooncol. doi:10.​1007/​s11060-009-0059-2
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 83(8):713–721PubMed Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 83(8):713–721PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Cooper JS, Steinfeld AD, Lerch IA (1990) Cerebral metastases: value of reirradiation in selected patients. Radiology 174(3:Pt 1):883–885PubMed Cooper JS, Steinfeld AD, Lerch IA (1990) Cerebral metastases: value of reirradiation in selected patients. Radiology 174(3:Pt 1):883–885PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Sadikov E, Bezjak A, Yi QL, Wells W, Dawson L, Millar BA et al (2007) Value of whole brain re-irradiation for brain metastases–single centre experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19(7):532–538 Sadikov E, Bezjak A, Yi QL, Wells W, Dawson L, Millar BA et al (2007) Value of whole brain re-irradiation for brain metastases–single centre experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19(7):532–538
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong WW, Schild SE, Sawyer TE, Shaw EG (1996) Analysis of outcome in patients reirradiated for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 34(3):585–590PubMed Wong WW, Schild SE, Sawyer TE, Shaw EG (1996) Analysis of outcome in patients reirradiated for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 34(3):585–590PubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Arbit E, Wroski M, Burt M, Galicich JH (1995) The treatment of patients with recurrent brain metastases. A retrospective analysis of 109 patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 76(5):765–773CrossRefPubMed Arbit E, Wroski M, Burt M, Galicich JH (1995) The treatment of patients with recurrent brain metastases. A retrospective analysis of 109 patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 76(5):765–773CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Bindal RK, Sawaya R, Leavens ME, Hess KR, Taylor SH (1995) Reoperation for recurrent metastatic brain tumors. J Neurosurg 83(4):600–604CrossRefPubMed Bindal RK, Sawaya R, Leavens ME, Hess KR, Taylor SH (1995) Reoperation for recurrent metastatic brain tumors. J Neurosurg 83(4):600–604CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Truong MT, St Clair EG, Donahue BR, Rush SC, Miller DC, Formenti SC et al (2006) Results of surgical resection for progression of brain metastases previously treated by gamma knife radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 59(1):86–97CrossRefPubMed Truong MT, St Clair EG, Donahue BR, Rush SC, Miller DC, Formenti SC et al (2006) Results of surgical resection for progression of brain metastases previously treated by gamma knife radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 59(1):86–97CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Vecil GG, Suki D, Maldaun MV, Lang FF, Sawaya R (2005) Resection of brain metastases previously treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 102(2):209–215CrossRefPubMed Vecil GG, Suki D, Maldaun MV, Lang FF, Sawaya R (2005) Resection of brain metastases previously treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 102(2):209–215CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Akyurek S, Chang EL, Mahajan A, Hassenbusch SJ, Allen PK, Mathews LA et al (2007) Stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of cerebral metastases arising from breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 30(3):310–314CrossRefPubMed Akyurek S, Chang EL, Mahajan A, Hassenbusch SJ, Allen PK, Mathews LA et al (2007) Stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of cerebral metastases arising from breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 30(3):310–314CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen JC, Petrovich Z, Giannotta SL, Yu C, Apuzzo ML (2000) Radiosurgical salvage therapy for patients presenting with recurrence of metastatic disease to the brain. Neurosurgery 46(4):860–866CrossRefPubMed Chen JC, Petrovich Z, Giannotta SL, Yu C, Apuzzo ML (2000) Radiosurgical salvage therapy for patients presenting with recurrence of metastatic disease to the brain. Neurosurgery 46(4):860–866CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Combs SE, Schulz-Ertner D, Thilmann C, Edler L, Debus J (2004) Treatment of cerebral metastases from breast cancer with stereotactic radiosurgery. Strahlenther Onkol 180(9):590–596CrossRefPubMed Combs SE, Schulz-Ertner D, Thilmann C, Edler L, Debus J (2004) Treatment of cerebral metastases from breast cancer with stereotactic radiosurgery. Strahlenther Onkol 180(9):590–596CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Davey P, Schwartz ML, Scora D, Gardner S, O’Brien PF (2007) Fractionated (split dose) radiosurgery in patients with recurrent brain metastases: Implications for survival. Br J Neurosurg 21(5):491–495CrossRefPubMed Davey P, Schwartz ML, Scora D, Gardner S, O’Brien PF (2007) Fractionated (split dose) radiosurgery in patients with recurrent brain metastases: Implications for survival. Br J Neurosurg 21(5):491–495CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Davey P, O’Brien PF, Schwartz ML, Cooper PW (1994) A phase I/II study of salvage radiosurgery in the treatment of recurrent brain metastases. Br J Neurosurg 8(6):717–723CrossRefPubMed Davey P, O’Brien PF, Schwartz ML, Cooper PW (1994) A phase I/II study of salvage radiosurgery in the treatment of recurrent brain metastases. Br J Neurosurg 8(6):717–723CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoffman R, Sneed PK, McDermott MW, Chang S, Lamborn KR, Park E et al (2001) Radiosurgery for brain metastases from primary lung carcinoma. Cancer J 7(2):121–131PubMed Hoffman R, Sneed PK, McDermott MW, Chang S, Lamborn KR, Park E et al (2001) Radiosurgery for brain metastases from primary lung carcinoma. Cancer J 7(2):121–131PubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Kwon KY, Kong DS, Lee JI, Nam DH, Park K, Kim JH (2007) Outcome of repeated radiosurgery for recurrent metastatic brain tumors. Clin Nerol Neurosurg 109(2):132–137CrossRef Kwon KY, Kong DS, Lee JI, Nam DH, Park K, Kim JH (2007) Outcome of repeated radiosurgery for recurrent metastatic brain tumors. Clin Nerol Neurosurg 109(2):132–137CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Loeffler JS, Kooy HM, Wen PY, Fine HA, Cheng CW, Mannarino EG et al (1990) The treatment of recurrent brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery. J Clin Oncol 8(4):576–582PubMed Loeffler JS, Kooy HM, Wen PY, Fine HA, Cheng CW, Mannarino EG et al (1990) The treatment of recurrent brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery. J Clin Oncol 8(4):576–582PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Noel G, Medioni J, Valery CA, Boisserie G, Simon JM, Cornu P et al (2003) Three irradiation treatment options including radiosurgery for brain metastases from primary lung cancer. Lung Cancer 41(3):333–343CrossRefPubMed Noel G, Medioni J, Valery CA, Boisserie G, Simon JM, Cornu P et al (2003) Three irradiation treatment options including radiosurgery for brain metastases from primary lung cancer. Lung Cancer 41(3):333–343CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Noel G, Proudhom MA, Valery CA, Cornu P, Boisserie G, Hasboun D et al (2001) Radiosurgery for re-irradiation of brain metastasis: results in 54 patients. Radiother Oncol 60(1):61–67CrossRefPubMed Noel G, Proudhom MA, Valery CA, Cornu P, Boisserie G, Hasboun D et al (2001) Radiosurgery for re-irradiation of brain metastasis: results in 54 patients. Radiother Oncol 60(1):61–67CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Sheehan J, Kondziolka D, Flickinger J, Lunsford LD (2005) Radiosurgery for patients with recurrent small cell lung carcinoma metastatic to the brain: outcomes and prognostic factors. J Neurosurg 102(Suppl):247–254CrossRefPubMed Sheehan J, Kondziolka D, Flickinger J, Lunsford LD (2005) Radiosurgery for patients with recurrent small cell lung carcinoma metastatic to the brain: outcomes and prognostic factors. J Neurosurg 102(Suppl):247–254CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Shuto T, Fujino H, Inomori S, Nagano H (2004) Repeated gamma knife radiosurgery for multiple metastatic brain tumours. Acta Neurochir (Wein) 146(9):989–993CrossRef Shuto T, Fujino H, Inomori S, Nagano H (2004) Repeated gamma knife radiosurgery for multiple metastatic brain tumours. Acta Neurochir (Wein) 146(9):989–993CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamanaka K, Iwai Y, Yasui T, Nakajima H, Komiyama M, Nishikawa M et al (1999) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for metastatic brain tumor: the usefulness of repeated Gamma Knife radiosurgery for recurrent cases. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 72(Suppl 1):73–80CrossRefPubMed Yamanaka K, Iwai Y, Yasui T, Nakajima H, Komiyama M, Nishikawa M et al (1999) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for metastatic brain tumor: the usefulness of repeated Gamma Knife radiosurgery for recurrent cases. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 72(Suppl 1):73–80CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Abrey LE, Olson JD, Raizer JJ, Mack M, Rodavitch A, Boutros DY et al (2001) A phase II trial of temozolomide for patients with recurrent or progressive brain metastases. J Neurooncol 53(3):259–265CrossRefPubMed Abrey LE, Olson JD, Raizer JJ, Mack M, Rodavitch A, Boutros DY et al (2001) A phase II trial of temozolomide for patients with recurrent or progressive brain metastases. J Neurooncol 53(3):259–265CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Brocker EB, Bohndorf W, Kampgen E, Trcka J, Messer P, Tilgen W et al (1996) Fotemustine given simultaneously with total brain irradiation in multiple brain metastases of malignant melanoma: report on a pilot study. Melanoma Res 6(5):399–401CrossRefPubMed Brocker EB, Bohndorf W, Kampgen E, Trcka J, Messer P, Tilgen W et al (1996) Fotemustine given simultaneously with total brain irradiation in multiple brain metastases of malignant melanoma: report on a pilot study. Melanoma Res 6(5):399–401CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Christodoulou C, Bafaloukos D, Linardou H, Aravantinos G, Bamias A, Carina M et al (2005) Temozolomide (TMZ) combined with cisplatin (CDDP) in patients with brain metastases from solid tumors: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) Phase II study. J Neurooncol 71(1):61–65CrossRefPubMed Christodoulou C, Bafaloukos D, Linardou H, Aravantinos G, Bamias A, Carina M et al (2005) Temozolomide (TMZ) combined with cisplatin (CDDP) in patients with brain metastases from solid tumors: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) Phase II study. J Neurooncol 71(1):61–65CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Feun LG, Lee YY, Plager C, Papadopoulos N, Savaraj N, Charnsangavej C et al (1990) Intracarotid cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant melanoma and central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 13(5):448–451CrossRefPubMed Feun LG, Lee YY, Plager C, Papadopoulos N, Savaraj N, Charnsangavej C et al (1990) Intracarotid cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant melanoma and central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 13(5):448–451CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Giorgio CG, Giuffrida D, Pappalardo A, Russo A, Santini D, Salice P et al (2005) Oral temozolomide in heavily pre-treated brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: phase II study. Lung Cancer 50(2):247–254CrossRefPubMed Giorgio CG, Giuffrida D, Pappalardo A, Russo A, Santini D, Salice P et al (2005) Oral temozolomide in heavily pre-treated brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: phase II study. Lung Cancer 50(2):247–254CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Groen HJ, Smit EF, Haaxma-Reiche H, Postmus PE (1993) Carboplatin as second line treatment for recurrent or progressive brain metastases from small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 29A(12):1696–1699CrossRefPubMed Groen HJ, Smit EF, Haaxma-Reiche H, Postmus PE (1993) Carboplatin as second line treatment for recurrent or progressive brain metastases from small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 29A(12):1696–1699CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Hwu WJ, Lis E, Menell JH, Panageas KS, Lamb LA, Merrell J et al (2005) Temozolomide plus thalidomide in patients with brain metastases from melanoma: a phase II study. Cancer 103(12):2590–2597CrossRefPubMed Hwu WJ, Lis E, Menell JH, Panageas KS, Lamb LA, Merrell J et al (2005) Temozolomide plus thalidomide in patients with brain metastases from melanoma: a phase II study. Cancer 103(12):2590–2597CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Iwamoto FM, Omuro AM, Raizer JJ, Nolan CP, Hormigo A, Lassman AB et al (2008) A phase II trial of vinorelbine and intensive temozolomide for patients with recurrent or progressive brain metastases. J Neurooncol 87(1):85–90CrossRefPubMed Iwamoto FM, Omuro AM, Raizer JJ, Nolan CP, Hormigo A, Lassman AB et al (2008) A phase II trial of vinorelbine and intensive temozolomide for patients with recurrent or progressive brain metastases. J Neurooncol 87(1):85–90CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaba SE, Kyritsis AP, Hess K, Yung WK, Mercier R, Dakhil S et al (1997) TPDC-FuHu chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent metastatic brain tumors. J Clin Oncol 15(3):1063–1070PubMed Kaba SE, Kyritsis AP, Hess K, Yung WK, Mercier R, Dakhil S et al (1997) TPDC-FuHu chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent metastatic brain tumors. J Clin Oncol 15(3):1063–1070PubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Omuro AM, Raizer JJ, Demopoulos A, Malkin MG, Abrey LE (2006) Vinorelbine combined with a protracted course of temozolomide for recurrent brain metastases: a phase I trial. J Neurooncol 78(3):277–280CrossRefPubMed Omuro AM, Raizer JJ, Demopoulos A, Malkin MG, Abrey LE (2006) Vinorelbine combined with a protracted course of temozolomide for recurrent brain metastases: a phase I trial. J Neurooncol 78(3):277–280CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
The role of retreatment in the management of recurrent/progressive brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline
verfasst von
Mario Ammirati
Charles S. Cobbs
Mark E. Linskey
Nina A. Paleologos
Timothy C. Ryken
Stuart H. Burri
Anthony L. Asher
Jay S. Loeffler
Paula D. Robinson
David W. Andrews
Laurie E. Gaspar
Douglas Kondziolka
Michael McDermott
Minesh P. Mehta
Tom Mikkelsen
Jeffrey J. Olson
Roy A. Patchell
Steven N. Kalkanis
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2010
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology / Ausgabe 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0167-594X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7373
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-009-0055-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2010

Journal of Neuro-Oncology 1/2010 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Neurologie

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Frühe Alzheimertherapie lohnt sich

25.04.2024 AAN-Jahrestagung 2024 Nachrichten

Ist die Tau-Last noch gering, scheint der Vorteil von Lecanemab besonders groß zu sein. Und beginnen Erkrankte verzögert mit der Behandlung, erreichen sie nicht mehr die kognitive Leistung wie bei einem früheren Start. Darauf deuten neue Analysen der Phase-3-Studie Clarity AD.

Viel Bewegung in der Parkinsonforschung

25.04.2024 Parkinson-Krankheit Nachrichten

Neue arznei- und zellbasierte Ansätze, Frühdiagnose mit Bewegungssensoren, Rückenmarkstimulation gegen Gehblockaden – in der Parkinsonforschung tut sich einiges. Auf dem Deutschen Parkinsonkongress ging es auch viel um technische Innovationen.

Demenzkranke durch Antipsychotika vielfach gefährdet

23.04.2024 Demenz Nachrichten

Wenn Demenzkranke aufgrund von Symptomen wie Agitation oder Aggressivität mit Antipsychotika behandelt werden, sind damit offenbar noch mehr Risiken verbunden als bislang angenommen.

Update Neurologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.