Abstract
Purpose
Lacosamide (LCM) is a third-generation anti-seizure medication (ASM) approved for focal onset epilepsy in patients aged ≥ 4.378 Previous studies have reported an efficacy of LCM as add-on treatment in brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE). To date, there are no studies in the literature focusing on lacosamide used in monotherapy to treat BTRE. In our retrospective study we investigated efficacy and tolerability of LCM in monotherapy in a multicenter national cohort of primary brain tumor patients.
Methods
We collected from 12 Italian Centers 132 patients with primary brain tumors who were treated with LCM in monotherapy. For each patient we evaluated seizure freedom at 3 and 6 months (primary endpoints), side effects and drop-out rate (secondary endpoints).
Results
Overall, LCM led to seizure freedom in 64.4% of patients at 3 months and 55% at 6 months. Patients who used two or more ASMs before LCM had a worse seizure control than patients in monotherapy with LCM as first choice.
In 14 patients, we observed seizure control despite tumor progression on magnetic resonance (MRI).
Multivariate analysis showed that gross-total resection at diagnosis was significantly associated with higher seizure freedom rate at 6 months.
Side effects were mainly mild (grade 1–2 according to CTCAE classification) and drop-out rate was low (1.5%). Main side effects were dizziness and somnolence.
Conclusions
This is the first study showing a good efficacy and tolerability of LCM when used in monotherapy in BTRE. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data, investigating also quality of life and neurocognitive functions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Seizures are an important problem among patients with brain tumors, with a frequency ranging from 15 to 95% depending on the histology. Dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumors (DNETs) and glioneuronal tumors have the highest prevalence (80–100%), followed by diffuse lower grade gliomas (75%), meningiomas (30–60%), glioblastomas (30–50%), brain metastases (20–35%) and primary CNS lymphomas (10%) [1]. Brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is often drug-resistant and polytherapy is required, thus impacting negatively quality of life and neurocognitive functions in patients with a prolonged life expectancy [2, 3].
Studies on anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in patients with brain tumors consist of retrospective or relatively small prospective studies, which are heterogeneous in tumor histology, seizure frequency, phase of disease, and concomitant antineoplastic treatment [4].
Due to a lack of well-controlled trials, the final choice of ASMs is often based on the individual physician’s judgement. Non-enzyme-inducing ASMs are preferred to minimize the risk of drug interactions between ASMs and anti-tumor agents (chemotherapies and targeted therapies) [5].
Lacosamide (LCM) is a third generation antiseizure medication, approved for focal onset epilepsy in patients aged ≥ 4 years, The main mechanism of action is slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels; furthermore, LCM seems to interact with collapsine-response mediator protein 2 (CRMP2), thus enhancing neuronal plasticity [6]. Among pharmacokinetic properties the absence of interactions with drugs metabolized by the hepatic cytochromes represents an advantage when treating patients with brain tumors.
In retrospective and prospective series, LCM showed a high efficacy and tolerability when used as add-on therapy in patients with BTRE, with a seizure reduction ≥ 50% at 6 months ranging from 66 to 86%, and a seizure freedom at 6 months ranging from 31 to 43% [7,8,9,10,11]. Main side effects were dizziness, somnolence, blurred vision and fatigue and were usually mild. Thus, retention rate at 6 months, which was evaluated in a European multicentric prospective study, was very high (86%) [11].
To date, there is a lack of studies in the literature focusing on the use of LCM as monotherapy in BTRE [4].
The purpose of this retrospective multicenter study was to assess efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide monotherapy in patients with primary brain tumor-related epilepsy.
Patients and methods
We collected information of patients from institutional databases. Charts were reviewed, interpreted and coded into study variables based on a newly-developed database that was evaluated and analyzed centrally (F.M. and R.R.).
Inclusion criteria were as follows:
-
Histological (according to WHO 2016 classification [12]) or radiological diagnosis of primary brain tumor.
-
Seizure description according to the new ILAE classification [13].
-
Age ≥ 16 years.
-
At least two focal-onset seizures in the disease course, with or without evolution from focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizures.
-
LCM used either as primary or secondary monotherapy after withdrawal of previous ASMs. Among patients of the second group, we further distinguished those who initially used LCM as add-on and then were converted to monotherapy, and those who introduced LCM after interruption of previous ASMs due to side-effects or ineffectiveness.
Exclusion criteria were as follows:
-
Patients with only perioperative seizures (seizures occurring within 7 days from the neurosurgical intervention).
-
Lacosamide used as add-on therapy.
The main endpoints of the study were efficacy (seizure control), evaluated by seizure freedom at 3 and 6 months from start of LCM in monotherapy, and tolerability (number, type and severity of adverse events according to CTCAE staging version 4.0). The reason for choosing a relatively short follow-up after treatment was mainly due to the presence of a significant number of glioblastoma patients who a relatively short life expectancy. Data about seizures were collected by a seizure diary compiled by each patient, helped by their caregivers when necessary. We also evaluated the drop-out rate (number of patients who withdrew the drug or tapered the dose because of side effects).
Statistical analysis
Patient characteristics were described using percentage frequencies for categorical data, mean values for continuous data.
We selected a priori the following factors as potentially associated with seizure freedom at 3 and 6 months: age (< 50 or ≥ 50), sex, duration of epilepsy from first seizure to LCM start (< 1 or ≥ 1 year), seizure type (focal aware, focal with impaired awareness or focal to bilateral tonic–clonic) and frequency (daily/weekly vs monthly/sporadic), number of ASMs used before LCM (none/1/ ≥ 2), tumor location (temporal/other locations), histology (diffuse lower grade gliomas, glioblastomas, glioneuronal tumors, meningiomas), extent of resection (EOR) (gross-total resection versus subtotal/partial resection), and concomitant antineoplastic treatment (yes/no).
Crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with p values (with a significance level < 0.05) were estimated using multivariate logistic regression models.
Patients with missing data, lost at follow-up or withdrawing LCM before the completion of 6 months of treatment because of side effects were included in the final analysis.
Results
Baseline characteristics of the study population
Overall, we enrolled from 12 Italian centers 132 patients, treated with LCM in monotherapy from 2004 to 2020.
The median age was 49 (range: 17–79 years). 76 patients were men, and 56 women.
The histological diagnosis was available in 126 patients, while in six patients it was suspected based on MRI, as surgery was unfeasible. 66 patients had a diffuse lower-grade (2–3) glioma: grade 2 and 3 oligodendrogliomas IDH-mutant 1p19q-codeleted were 15 (11.4%) and 14 (10.6%), grade 2 and 3 astrocytomas IDH-mutant were 12 (9.1%) and 9 (6.8%), while grade 2 and 3 astrocytomas IDH-wildtype were 9 (6.8%) and 7 (5.3%). 33 (25.0%) patients had a diagnosis of glioblastoma, six (4.5%) had a glioneuronal tumor, three (2.3%) a DNET, two (1.5%) a pilocytic astrocytoma and 16 (12.2%) a meningioma. Among the 126 patients who underwent a surgical intervention, 74 had a gross total resection (GTR) while the remaining 52 a subtotal/partial.
In 53 patients the tumor had a frontal location, in 33 a temporal location, in 20 both frontal and temporal and in the remaining 26 patients occipital or parietal.
Forty-nine patients received LCM as primary monotherapy, while 83 patients received LCM as secondary monotherapy (LCM used after one or more other ASMs), either after interrupting previous ASMs because of side effects or ineffectiveness (43 patients) or after initial add-on (40 patients). The median duration of previous add-on treatment was 9.5 months: 60% of patients became seizure-free with the use of add-on LCM and were converted to monotherapy, while the remaining were converted to monotherapy because of side effects of the concomitant antiepileptic drug. Among patients who received LCM as secondary monotherapy, 56 (42.4%) used one ASM and 27 (20.4%) two or more ASMs. 63 patients received levetiracetam, 11 patients oxcarbazepine, 11 sodium valproate, nine carbamazepine, four phenytoin, four topiramate, three phenobarbital, two lamotrigine, two zonisamide, two perampanel and one brivaracetam.
The starting dose of LCM was 200 mg per day (median value), maximum dose 300 mg per day (median value). The median dose of LinteCM used was 250 mg per day (range 100–500 mg).
The mean duration of epilepsy, from first seizure to lacosamide start, was 21.4 months (range 0–348 months). Seizure frequency at the time of LCM start was daily in 13 patients (9.8%), weekly in 32 (24.2%), monthly in 62 (47%) and sporadic (less than one seizure per month) in 25 (19%).
Seizures were focal aware in 69 patients (52.3%), focal to bilateral tonic–clonic in 35 patients (26.5%), and focal with impaired consciousness in only 28 patients (21.2%).
In 68 (51.5%) patients a concurrent antineoplastic treatment was used either at the time of LCM start or during LCM treatment: radiotherapy in 8 patients, chemotherapy in 19 (temozolomide or procarbazine-lomustine-vincristine/PCV) and chemoradiation in 35 patients. In 6 patients the type of treatment was unknown. Conversely, 48.5% of patients were observed with magnetic resonance (MRI) without any need of an antineoplastic treatment. Most of patients (65.2%) were not on steroids at the time of LCM start (Tables 1, 2).
Seizure response to lacosamide
Data concerning seizure response at 3 and 6 months were available in 115 patients, while 17 patients were lost at follow-up and two patients withdrew LCM before the completion of 6 months of treatment.
Overall, 64.4% and 55.0% of patients included in the study were seizure-free at 3 and 6 months following LCM in monotherapy.
The seizure freedom rate at 3 and 6 months was 63.3% and 46.9% for patients who received primary LCM monotherapy, 62.8% and 58.1% for those who received LCM monotherapy after interrupting previous ASMs, and 67.5% and 62.5% for those who received LCM monotherapy after initial add-on.
In patients who used one ASM before LCM, seizure freedom was 69.6% at 3 months and 67.8% at 6 months, while in patients treated with two or more ASMs before LCM seizure freedom rate was lower (55.6% and 44.4% at 3 and 6 months, respectively). Patients who were treated with two or more ASMs before LCM (n = 27) had a significantly younger age (being those < 50-year-old 20/27, 74.1% vs 48/105, 45.7%, p = 0.009), a significant prevalence of low-grade gliomas (21/27, 77.8% vs 59/105, 56.2%, p = 0.041), a longer history of brain tumor-related epilepsy (> 1-year in 21/27, 77.8% vs 24/105, 22.9%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to undergo concomitant antineoplastic treatments (10/27, 37.0% vs 58/102, 56.9%, p = 0.067).
Due to the different mechanisms of epileptogenesis, we evaluated seizure control separately across the different histological subtypes: seizure freedom rate at 3 and 6 months was 63.6% and 56.1% in lower-grade gliomas, 66.7% and 54.5% in glioblastomas, 66.7% at both 3 and 6 months in DNETs and glioneuronal tumors, and 68.7% and 62.5% in meningiomas. Among patients without a histological diagnosis, seizure freedom rate was 37.5% and 25.0% at 3 and 6 months respectively.
Patients who were not on steroids had a better seizure control at 6 months than patients taking steroids (seizure freedom rate 61.6% vs 45.5%). Conversely, seizure freedom rate at 3 months was similar in the two groups (66.3% and 63.6%).
The median effective dose of LCM used to obtain seizure control was 250 mg per day.
In 14 patients (16.9% of responders) we observed a seizure freedom following LCM despite tumor progression on MRI: in five patients the progression was documented at 3 months, in eight patients at 6 months and in one patient both at 3 and 6 months.
We did not observe any death.
A multivariate analysis on the whole cohort with histological diagnosis showed that patients who underwent a gross total resection of the tumor derived higher seizure freedom at 6 months following LCM, as compared to patients with subtotal/partial resection (p = 0.047), while we did not find any significant correlation between seizure freedom rate at 3 and 6 months and age, sex, number of previous ASMs, epilepsy duration, histology, tumor site, seizure type and frequency, concomitant antineoplastic treatment, and disease progression (Table 3). However, we observed a worse seizure control in patients who used two or more ASMs before LCM but without reaching a statistical significance maybe due to the small sample size.
We also investigated in a multivariate analysis whether the IDH mutation, 1p/19q codeletion and tumor grade had an impact on seizure freedom at 3 and 6 months among patients with lower-grade gliomas: IDH mutation, 1p/19q codeletion and the tumor grade did not significantly correlate with seizure control. Conversely, in the same subgroup, the use of steroids significantly correlated with a lower seizure freedom at 6 months (OR 0.05, p = 0.029) (Table 4).
Side effects and adherence to treatment
Adverse events during LCM therapy were reported in 13 patients (9.8%), being the most frequent somnolence (six patients) and dizziness (three patients). Side effects were more frequent mild (grade 1–2 according to CTCAE staging), and only in three patients (2.5%) were serious (grade 3–4), consisting in excessive sedation (one patient) and psychiatric condition like depressed mood (two patients, grade 1).
Adverse events led to LCM dose reduction in five patients (mean dose reduction 70 mg, range 50–100 mg) and drug withdrawal in two patients (one patient for dizziness and one because of anxiety and depression).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study focusing exclusively on the use of LCM in monotherapy in patients with brain tumors and epilepsy.
Seizure freedom at 6 months after LCM monotherapy was higher (55%) [8,9,10,11] as compared to values reported for LCM in add-on therapy (31–43%) (Table 5). Furthermore, a better seizure control was obtained in patients who started LCM as first or second line treatment. Nevertheless, seizure control was significant also in patients who had two or more ASMs before LCM (seizure freedom rate at 6 months of 44.4%).
When compared to other ASMs used in monotherapy in BTRE, LCM showed a similar efficacy to levetiracetam, perampanel and valproic acid and a higher efficacy than oxcarbazepine and topiramate, with fewer side effects than perampanel and oxcarbazepine [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. A recent multicentric retrospective study did not find any statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure from any reason between LCM and lamotrigine among patients who mainly received the drugs in add-on [14].
Regarding the histological type, we found a similar seizure control in glioblastomas and grade 2–3 gliomas, while in the literature a worse seizure control is described in glioblastomas [26]. We reported also a good seizure control in patients with meningiomas and glioneuronal tumors: the seizure freedom rate at 6 months was 58.8% and 54.5%, respectively. Among lower-grade glioma both IDH mutation and tumor grade were not correlated with seizure freedom following LCM.
Our study confirms the positive correlation between extent of resection (EOR) and long-term seizure control [27,28,29,30,31,32]: patients undergoing gross-total resection reached a condition of seizure freedom more frequently regardless of tumor histology.
This study confirms the good tolerability of lacosamide, and the high adherence to treatment. Similarly to other studies, side effects were reported in a low proportion of patients, and the drop-out rate because of adverse events was low (1.5%).
Conclusions
According to the results of this preliminary study, lacosamide when used in monotherapy is well tolerated and effective in patients with BTRE.
The limits of our study are the retrospective collection of data, implying that possible gaps in information would have occurred, and the lack of information about quality of life and neurocognitive functions during treatment. Furthermore, we investigated seizure control in a heterogeneous study population, including different brain tumor types undergoing different surgical approaches and adjuvant treatments.
Conversely, this is a large national real-life study. Further prospective cohort studies or randomized trials with quality of life and cognitive preservation as secondary end-points are needed in order to better define efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide in monotherapy.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Van Breemen MSM, Wilms EB, Vecht CJ (2007) Epilepsy in patients with brain tumours: epidemiology, mechanisms, and management. Lancet Neurol 6:421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70103-5
Vecht CJ, Kerkhof M, Duran-Pena A (2014) Seizure prognosis in brain tumors: new insights and evidence-based management. Oncologist 19(7):751–759. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0060
Rudà R, Bello L, Duffau H, Soffietti R (2012) Seizures in low-grade gliomas: natural history, pathogenesis, and outcome after treatments. Neuro Oncol 14(Suppl 4):iv55–iv64. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nos199
De Bruin ME, van der Meer PB, Dirven L, Taphoom MJB, Koekkoek JAF (2021) Efficacy of antiepileptic drugs in glioma patients with epilepsy: a systematic review. Neurooncol Pract 8(5):501–517. https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npab030
Perucca E (2013) Optimizing antiepileptic drug treatment in tumoral epilepsy. Epilepsia 54(Suppl 9):97–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.12452
Kellinghaus C (2009) Lacosamide as treatment for partial epilepsy: mechanisms of action, pharmacology, effects, and safety. Ther Clin Risk Manag 5:757–766. https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s5189
Saria MG, Corle C, Hu J, Rudnick JD, Phuphanich S, Mrugala MM, Crew LK, Bota DA, Dan FuB, Kim RY, Brown T, Feely H, Brechlin J, Brown BD, Drappatz J, Wen PY, Chen CC, Carter B, Lee JW, Kesari S (2013) Retrospective analysis of the tolerability and activity of lacosamide in patients with brain tumors: clinical article. J Neurosurg 118(6):1183–1187. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.1.JNS12397
Villanueva V, Saiz-Diaz R, Toledo M, Piera A, Mauri JA, Rodriguez-Uranga JJ, López-González FJ, Gómez-Ibáñez A, Garcés M, González de la Aleja J, Rodríguez-Osorio X, Palao-Duarte S, Castillo A, Bonet M, Ruiz-Giménez J, Palau J, Arcediano A, Toledo M, Gago A (2016) NEOPLASM study: Real-life use of lacosamide in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 65:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.09.033
Maschio M, Zarabla A, Maialetti A, Fabi A, Vidiri A, Villani V, Giannarelli D (2017) Quality of life, mood and seizure control in patients with brain tumor related epilepsy treated with lacosamide as add-on therapy: a prospective explorative study with a historical control group. Epilepsy Behav 73:83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.05.031
Rudà R, Pellerino A, Franchino F, Bertolotti C, Bruno F, Mo F, Migliore E, Ciccone G, Soffietti R (2018) Lacosamide in patients with gliomas and uncontrolled seizures: results from an observational study. J Neurooncol 136(1):105–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2628-0
Rudà R, Houillier C, Maschio M, Reijneveld JC, Hellot S, De Backer M, Chan J, Joeres L, Leunikava I, Glas M, Grant R (2020) Effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide as add-on therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: Results from a prospective, noninterventional study in European clinical practice (VIBES). Epilepsia 61(4):647–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.16486
Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G et al (2016) The 2016 world health organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131(6):803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1
Scheffer IE, Berkovic S, Capovilla G, Connolly MB, French J, Guilhoto L, Hirsch E, Jain S, Mathern GW, Moshé SL, Nordli DR, Perucca E, Tomson T, Wiebe S, Zhang YH, Zuberi SM (2017) ILAE classification of the epilepsies: position paper of the ILAE commission for classification and terminology. Epilepsia 58(4):512–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13709
Van Opijen MP, van der Meer PB, Dirven L, Fiocco M, Kouwenhoven MCM, van den Bent MJ, Taphoorn MJB, Koekkoek JAF (2021) The effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients: lamotrigine versus lacosamide. J Neurooncol 154(1):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-021-03800-z
Maschio M, Dinapoli L, Sperati F, Pace A, Fabi A, Vidiri A, Muti P (2011) Levetiracetam monotherapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: seizure control, safety, and quality of life. J Neurooncol 104:205–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-010-0460-x
Rosati A, Buttolo L, Stefini R, Todeschini A, Cenzato M, Padovani A (2010) Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in patients with glioma: a clinical prospective study. Arch Neurol 67(3):343–346. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurol.2009.335
Wagner GL, Wilms EB, Van Donselaar CA, Vecht ChJ (2003) Levetiracetam: preliminary experience in patients with primary brain tumours. Seizure 12:585–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1059-1311(03)00096-7
Lim DA, Tarapore P, Chang E, Burt M, Chakalian L, Barbaro N, Chang S, Lamborn KR, McDermott MW (2009) Safety and feasibility of switching from phenytoin to levetiracetam monotherapy for glioma-related seizure control following craniotomy: a randomized phase II pilot study. J Neurooncol 93:349–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-008-9781-4
Newton HB, Goldlust SA, Pearl D (2006) Retrospective analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam in brain tumor patients. J Neurooncol 78:99–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-005-9070-4
Vecht C, Duran-Peña A, Houillier C, Durand T, Capelle L, Huberfeld G (2017) Seizure response to perampanel in drug-resistant epilepsy with gliomas: early observations. J Neurooncol 133:603–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2473-1
Kerkhof M, Dielemans JC, van Breemen MS, Zwinkels H, Walchenbach R, Taphoorn MJ, Vecht CJ (2013) Effect of valproic acid on seizure control and on survival in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol 15:961–967. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/not057
Vecht CJ, Kerkhof M, Duran-Pena A (2014) Seizure prognosis in brain tumors: new insights and evidence-based management. Oncologist 19:751–759. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0060
Maschio M, Dinapoli L, Sperati F, Fabi A, Pace A, Vidiri A, Muti P (2012) Oxcarbazepine monotherapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: open-label pilot study for assessing the efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life. J Neurooncol 106:651–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-011-0689-z
Mauro AM, Bomprezzi C, Morresi S, Provinciali L, Formica F, Iacoangeli M, Scerrati M (2007) Prevention of early postoperative seizures in patients with primary brain tumors: Preliminary experience with oxcarbazepine. J Neurooncol 81:279–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-006-9229-7
Maschio M, Dinapoli L, Zarabla A, Pompili A, Carapella CM, Pace A, Giannarelli D, Occhipinti E, Jandolo B (2008) Outcome and tolerability of topiramate in brain tumor associated epilepsy. J Neurooncol 86:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-007-9430-3
van Breemen MSM, Rijsman RM, Taphoorn JB, Walchenbach R, Zwinkels H, Vecht CJ (2009) Efficacy of anti-epileptic drugs in patients with gliomas and seizures. J Neurol 256:1519–1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-5156-9
Faramand AM, Barnes N, Harrison S, Gunny R, Jacques T, Tahir MZ, Varadkar SM, Cross HJ, Harkness W, Tisdall MM (2018) Seizure and cognitive outcomes after resection of glioneuronal tumors in children. Epilepsia 59:170–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13961
Southwell DG, Garcia PA, Berger MS, Barbaro NM, Changet EF (2012) Long-term seizure control outcomes after resection of gangliogliomas. Neurosurgery 70:1406–1413. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182500a4c (discussion 1413–1414)
Xiangrong L, Chengjun W, Zhiqin L, Meng Z, Xiaohui R, Xiaohui Z et al (2020) Risk factors and control of seizures in 778 Chinese patients undergoing initial resection of supratentorial meningiomas. Neurosurg Rev 43:597–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01085-5
Berntsson SG, Merrell RT, Amirian ES, Armstrong GN, Lachance D, Smits A, Jiang Z (2018) Glioma-related seizures in relation to histopathological subtypes: a report from the glioma international case–control study. J Neurol 265:1432–1442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-018-8857-0
Chang EF, Potts MB, Keles GE, Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Barbaro NM, Berger MS (2008) Seizure characteristics and control following resection in 332 patients with low-grade gliomas. J Neurosurg 108:227–235. https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS/2008/108/2/0227
Chaichana KL, Parker SL, Olivi A, Quiñones-Hinojosa A (2009) Long-term seizure outcomes in adult patients undergoing primary resection of malignant brain astrocytomas. J Neurosurg 111:282–292. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.2.JNS081132
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FM and RR: designed the study, performed data analysis and wrote the manuscript. SM, VB, SQ, MN, LB., FD, MS, IF, AM, GP, FB, AP, GG, MP, MS, MCN, GLG: contributed to collection of data, interpretation of the results, intellectual contents and critical revision of the draft AP and FC: contributed to critical revision of the draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
Mo F., Meletti S., Belcastro V., Quadri S., Napolitano M., Bello L., Dainese F., Scarpelli M., Florindo I., Mascia A., Pauletto G., Bruno F., Pellerino A., Giovannini G., Polosa M., Sessa M., Conti Nibali M., Gigli G.L., Pisanello A., Cavallieri F.: did not declare conflicts of interests. Di Gennaro G. joined advisory boards and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored symposia for EISAI, UCB, LivaNova, Arvelle. Rudà R. joined Advisory Boards and received grants from UCB, Mundipharma, Novocure and Bayer.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mo, F., Meletti, S., Belcastro, V. et al. Lacosamide in monotherapy in BTRE (brain tumor-related epilepsy): results from an Italian multicenter retrospective study. J Neurooncol 157, 551–559 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-03998-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-03998-6