Koekkoek Johan A F, Kerkhof Melissa, Dirven Linda, Heimans Jan J, Postma Tjeerd J, Vos Maaike J, Bromberg Jacoline E C, van den Bent Martin J, Reijneveld Jaap C, Taphoorn Martin J B
BMC Neurol. 2014 Aug 15;14:157. doi: 10.1186/s12883-014-0157-4.
Epilepsy is common in patients with a glioma. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment, but may cause side effects and may negatively impact neurocognitive functioning and quality of life. Besides antiepileptic drugs, anti-tumour treatment, which currently consists of surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, may contribute to seizure control as well. In glioma patients with seizure freedom after anti-tumour therapy the question emerges whether AEDs should be continued, particularly in the case where anti-tumour treatment has been successful. We propose to explore the possibility of AED withdrawal in glioma patients with long-term seizure freedom after anti-tumour therapy and without signs of tumour progression.
METHODS/DESIGN: We initiate a prospective, observational study exploring the decision-making process on the withdrawal or continuation of AEDs in low-grade and anaplastic glioma patients with stable disease and prolonged seizure freedom after anti-tumour treatment, and the effects of AED withdrawal or continuation on seizure freedom. We recruit participants through the outpatient clinics of three tertiary referral centers for brain tumour patients in The Netherlands. The patient and the treating physician make a shared decision to either withdraw or continue AED treatment. Over a one-year period, we aim to include 100 glioma patients. We expect approximately half of the participants to be willing to withdraw AEDs. The primary outcome measures are: 1) the outcome of the shared-decision making on AED withdrawal or continuation, and decision related arguments, and 2) seizure freedom at 12 months and 24 months of follow-up. We will also evaluate seizure type and frequency in case of seizure recurrence, as well as neurological symptoms, adverse effects related to AED treatment or withdrawal, other anti-tumour treatments and tumour progression.
This study addresses two issues that are currently unexplored. First, it will explore the willingness to withdraw AEDs in glioma patients, and second, it will assess the risk of seizure recurrence in case AEDs are withdrawn in this specific patient population. This study aims to contribute to a more tailored AED treatment, and prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful use of AEDs in glioma patients.
癫痫在胶质瘤患者中很常见。抗癫痫药物(AEDs)是癫痫治疗的主要手段,但可能会引起副作用,并且可能对神经认知功能和生活质量产生负面影响。除了抗癫痫药物外,目前包括手术、放疗和/或化疗在内的抗肿瘤治疗也可能有助于控制癫痫发作。在接受抗肿瘤治疗后癫痫发作得到控制的胶质瘤患者中,出现了是否应继续使用AEDs的问题,特别是在抗肿瘤治疗成功的情况下。我们建议探讨在抗肿瘤治疗后长期无癫痫发作且无肿瘤进展迹象的胶质瘤患者中停用AEDs的可能性。
方法/设计:我们启动一项前瞻性观察性研究,探讨在低级别和间变性胶质瘤患者中,疾病稳定且抗肿瘤治疗后癫痫发作长期得到控制的情况下,关于停用或继续使用AEDs的决策过程,以及停用或继续使用AEDs对癫痫发作控制的影响。我们通过荷兰三个脑肿瘤患者三级转诊中心的门诊招募参与者。患者和主治医生共同决定停用或继续使用AED治疗。在一年的时间里,我们的目标是纳入100名胶质瘤患者。我们预计大约一半的参与者愿意停用AEDs。主要结局指标为:1)关于停用或继续使用AEDs的共同决策结果及相关决策依据,2)随访12个月和24个月时的癫痫发作控制情况。如果癫痫复发,我们还将评估癫痫发作类型和频率,以及神经症状、与AED治疗或停药相关的不良反应、其他抗肿瘤治疗和肿瘤进展情况。
本研究解决了目前尚未探讨的两个问题。第一,它将探讨胶质瘤患者停用AEDs的意愿,第二,它将评估在这一特定患者群体中停用AEDs后癫痫复发的风险。本研究旨在有助于更有针对性的AED治疗,并防止在胶质瘤患者中不必要地使用可能有害的AEDs。