$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
This novel TTF system is an FDA approved device that delivers intermediate frequency, low intensity alternating electric field directly to the brain for the treatment of recurrent glioblastomas1. It is considered a fourth treatment modality for the treatment of cancer in addition to surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. During preclinical experimentation, it was shown that the exposure of cancer cells to the tumor treating fields or TTFields resulted in disruption of cell division and subsequently apoptosis20.
Glioblastomas are the most common type of glioma and also the most aggressive. In the newly diagnosed setting, a standard treatment approach consists of concurrent radiation and temozolomide followed by adjuvant temozolomide for 6 months13. A recently completed phase III clinical trial showed a significant prolongation of median overall survival for patients treated with concurrent and adjuvant radiation with temozolomide as opposed to radiation alone. This trial led to the adoption of this protocol as a new standard of care for the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma13. Unfortunately, those patients invariably relapse and treatment options become limited at that point. There is no standard approach for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma; however, there are two FDA approved treatment modalities, namely bevacizumab and the novel TTF system. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the VEGF protein results in the blockage of the VEGF protein/receptor interaction. This results in inhibition of vascular proliferation which is part of the tumor vasculature. The TTF system works through an entirely different mechanism, that is through delivery of continuous alternating electric fields that results in inhibition of cell division and apoptosis1,6,7,20. Despite all available treatment modalities, prognosis for recurrent glioblastoma remains dismal4.
Here we describe a novel approach for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma using the delivery of both TTFields as well as the simultaneous bevacizumab infusion. The hope is that the combination approach would prove superior to monotherapy but this remains to be verified in a large scale clinical trial.
The Electromagnetic Basis for the TTF System
In order to understand the antimitotic effects of electric field-based treatment for GBM (Tumor Treating Fields therapy or TTF therapy), one must review a few concepts related to electromagnetic theory. This theory was formulated by Michael Faraday in the 1800s and states that a source charge is surrounded by an electromagnetic field18. This can exert a force on a test charge that is placed within that field. The electric field can be either uniform or non-uniform. In a uniform electric field, the field intensity remains uniform throughout. This can be represented by parallel lines of force. In a non-uniform electric field, the field intensity is non-uniform and varies from one end of the field to the other. This in turn can be represented by converging or diverging lines of force, where converging lines of force represent the area of higher field intensity and vice versa. A test charge will move towards the area of higher field intensity within that field. On the other hand, an electric field can either be constant or time-varying (alternating). The source charge in a constant electric field will remain the same while that same charge will oscillate/alternate between positive and negative in a time-varying field as a function of time19.
The direction of movement of a test charge in an electric field depends on several parameters. First, a test charge can be either an electric charge or a dipole. An electric charge is either positive or negative while a dipole is positive on one end and negative on the other. An electric charge will move towards the opposite charge while a dipole will rotate. The TTF System delivers an alternating electric field and therefore both charges and dipoles move or rotate in the direction of the opposite charge and higher field intensity. During the formation of the daughter cells in telophase, the morphology of the cells results in a non-uniform electric field and a field gradient leading to dielectrophoresis19. Dielectrophoresis is defined as the migration of uncharged particles towards the position of maximal field strength in a non-uniform field.
The Mechanism of the Anti-Mitotic Effects of Tumor Treating-Fields
The idea of using TTFields (tumor treating fields) for the treatment of cancer was originally conceptualized by Professor Yoram Palti20. Palti theorized that mitotic activity of cancer cells would be disrupted by applying properly tuned electric fields. The hypothesis was subsequently tested in various cancer cell cultures where it was demonstrated that electric fields disrupted the polymerization of tubulin subunits and therefore prevented the formation of mitotic spindles necessary for cell division20. For example, in an in vitro high-grade glioma model, the optimal TTField frequency shown to exert the maximal cell kill without excessive tissue stimulation or heating was determined to be 200 KHz20. The application of low frequency (<1 kHz) electric fields is known to result in biological tissue stimulation through membrane depolarization. As the frequency increases well above 1 kHz, the stimulatory effect greatly diminishes since the membranes hyperpolarization and depolarization cycles are integrated and the net effect becomes closer to nil. At significantly higher frequencies (MHz range), the electric fields result in tissue heating due to dielectric losses. This concept has been applied in clinical practice in applications such as diathermy and radiofrequency tumor ablation. The optimal effect was also dependent on the field intensity where fields in the rage of 1-3 V/cm were most effective without causing tissue heating. In addition, since the fields applied were of intermediate frequency (200 Khz in the case of glioma cells) they did not result in biological membrane stimulation. The application of low-intensity (1-3 V/cm), intermediate frequency (200 kHz) tumor treating fields to cells undergoing mitosis therefore resulted in the alignment of the highly charged tubulin subunits in the direction of higher field intensity, in this case towards the cells cleavage furrow. This resulted in disruption of mitosis, the formation of plasma membrane blebs and ultimately apoptotic cell death (see video portion of manuscript)20. Kirson and colleagues also showed that the maximal effects were observed when the field was applied roughly along the same direction as the cells undergoing mitosis. Fields applied in that manner and on a continuous basis for at least 24 hr were shown to result in arrest of cell proliferation and destruction of cells undergoing mitosis20. Using these preclinical data, the current method of applying the TTF System arrays is such that two sequential field directions are applied to the tumor to optimize cell kill rate. As such, the arrays layout is planned using the tumor MRI data to achieve the maximal desired biological activity.
Mechanism of Action of Bevacizumab and Rationale for Combining With Electric Fields for treating rGBM
Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the VEGF molecule and prevents its interaction with the VEGF receptor. It received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2009 for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma based on two phase II, open-label, non-comparative studies. In the BRAIN study, the objective response rate was 28% (24/85), with a median duration of response of 5.6 months. The PFS-6 rate with single-agent bevacizumab was 42.6% (95% CI, 29.6%–55.5%), and the median OS was 9.2 months (95% CI, 8.2–10.7 months)8. The second study (NCI 06-C-0064E) the objective response rate was 19.6% (11/56; 95% CI, 10.9%–31.3%). The median PFS was 16 weeks (95% CI, 12–26 weeks), the PFS-6 rate was 29% (95% CI, 18%–48%), and the median OS was 31 weeks (95% CI, 21–54 weeks)21. In summary, the two studies found that when compared with historical controls, the use of bevacizumab was associated with higher progression-free survival rates and disease response rates. On the other hand, there is no strong evidence to indicate that bevacizumab can prolong median overall survival when used as an upfront treatment for newly diagnosed GBM patients. Bevacizumab had been tried in combination with several chemotherapeutic agents in the past. A retrospective review of recurrent GBM patients treated with a bevacizumab containing regimen and subsequently treated with a different bevacizumab containing regimen after progression concluded that there is no benefit with continuation of bevacizumab following tumor progression27. Furthermore, despite the favorable radiographic response based on reduction in the enhancing disease seen after bevacizumab treatment, a recent study concluded that non-enhancing disease progression is common after bevacizumab treatment and may be associated with worse outcomes.28
Several preclinical and early clinical data indicate that the combination of tumor treating fields with chemotherapeutic agents maybe more effective (and potentially synergistic) than chemotherapy alone22,23,24. For example, a study assessed the effects of TTFields alone or in combination with various chemotherapies (paclitaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and dacarbazine) on human breast carcinoma (MDA-MB-231) and human glioma (U-118) cell lines24. The same study examined the effects of TTFields in combination with these chemotherapeutic agents in an animal tumor model and in a pilot clinical trial in recurrent and newly diagnosed GBM patients. The study concluded that the sensitivity to chemotherapeutic treatment was increased by 1-3 orders of magnitude by the addition of TTFields. In a pilot clinical trial involving patients with newly-diagnosed and recurrent GBM, the combination approach resulted in a significantly improved PFS and OS (progression free survival of 155 weeks and overall survival of 39+ months) compared with historical controls26.
On the other hand, a large phase III trial comparing TTF Therapy to physicians’ choice chemotherapy in the treatment of rGBM (EF-11) showed that both treatment approaches resulted in similar survival outcomes while TTF Therapy afforded a better side effect profile compared with chemotherapy10. Given that both bevacizumab and TTF Therapy have shown activity and are currently FDA approved albeit as monotherapy for rGBM, we hypothesized that the combination of the two treatment modalities may afford an advantage over the use of either agent alone. One hypothesis of why the combination bevacizumab with chemotherapy may offer little advantage in terms of patient overall survival is the dependence of chemotherapy on compromise of the blood brain barrier. When bevacizumab corrects the blood brain barrier, it also affects the ability of chemotherapy to reach the tumor effectively. TTF Therapy as a physical modality is hypothesized not to be dependent on the blood brain barrier for it efficacy. There are limitations to utilizing this novel treatment approach. On the one hand, patient selection can be difficult especially given the contraindications for each treatment modality. It is unclear whether the contraindications for the combination approach are similarly those of the individual treatment modalities when employed as monotherapy or if there are additional precautions with the combination approach. From our limited experience with this novel approach, patients tolerated the treatment well. On the other hand, it remains to be seen in a large scale clinical trial whether this approach will provide any additional advantage (overall survival or progression-free survival) over the currently available treatment protocols. Currently, there is a large unmet need for developing effective treatment approaches for rGBM as its prognosis remains dismal despite all available treatment modalities. This approach will need to be assessed in a large scale clinical trial to determine if it can address this unmet need for this unfortunate patient population.