Whole-brain Irradiation With or Without Hippocampal Sparing in Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: Impact of Sites of Primary Lesions and Recurrences on Personalized Treatment

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1251159/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Whole-brain Irradiation With or Without Hippocampal Sparing in Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: Impact of Sites of Primary Lesions and Recurrences on Personalized Treatment

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1251159/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 02 Oct, 2023

Read the published version in Radiation Oncology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

One of the main limiting factors of whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is the impairment of neurocognitive functions (NCFs), which is mainly caused by radiation-induced injury to the hippocampus. With a view to preventing NCF impairment and personalizing treatment, we explored the feasibility of sparing the hippocampus during WBRT by correlating the sites of PCNSL lesions with the hippocampus.

Methods and Materials

Pre-treatment MR images from patients who underwent WBRT between 2010 and January 2020 - and post-radiotherapy images in cases of relapse - were imported into the Varian Eclipse treatment-planning system and registered with the simulation CT. We constructed three 3-dimensional envelopes around the hippocampus at distances of 5, 10 and 15mm and also contoured primary lesions and recurrences.

Results

We analyzed 43 patients with 66 primary lesions: 9/66 (13.6%) involved the hippocampus and 11/66 (16.7%) were located within 5mm of it. Thirtysix lesions (54.5%) were situated more than 15 mm from the hippocampus, while 10/66 (15.2%) were between 5 and 15 mm from it. The most common location was in deep brain structures (31%). Thirty-five of the 66 lesions relapsed: 14/35 (40%) in the same location and 21/35 (60%) in different sites. Globally, 16/35 recurrences (45.7%) were located in the hippocampus or within 5mm of it.

Conclusion

These data show that routinely sparing the hippocampus is not feasible. This approach could be considered in selected patients, when the lesion is more than 15 mm from the hippocampus.

PCNSL

Hippocampal sparing

WBRT

IMRT

neuro-toxicity

personalized treatment

Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare form of aggressive extranodal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) [1], accounting for 1-2% of all non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and 2-3% of all primary brain tumors [2]. PCNSL is an aggressive tumor; it has a rapid clinical evolution and a rather unfavorable prognosis, with 5-year survival rates of 25-30% [3] and a median survival of 10-20 months [4].

Owing to its rarity, it has been difficult to carry out randomized studies aimed at defining a therapeutic standard. Surgery is restricted to biopsy, while chemotherapy and radiotherapy are the main therapeutic approaches [5, 6]. WBRT is generally undertaken. This approach is justified by the fact that intracranial lesions are frequently multicentric and microscopic infiltration is common [7, 8]. Indeed, brain relapses increase when the treatment volume is reduced, as reported by Shibamoto [8]. Relapse and/or progression of the disease are the main causes of treatment failure, while late neurotoxicity is the main limiting factor [4, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The mechanisms underlying the development of neurotoxicity are only partly understood, and are related in part to the neoplasm and in part to the effects of treatment. Recent studies have suggested that, in patients undergoing panencephalic radiotherapy, deficits in both short-term and long-term memory and in temporospatial perception are related to hippocampal injury [13, 14]. The pathogenesis of radio-induced neurocognitive impairment could be due, at least in part, to a microangiopathy that causes infarcts and microvascular ischemia of the critical centers of neurocognitive processes, especially in the hippocampus [15]. In addition to its fundamental role in learning and memory processes, the hippocampus has recently been suggested to act as a source of stem cells involved in neuro-regeneration [16]. In this context, hippocampal sparing has been explored in patients affected by brain metastases who undergo WBRT [13, 14, 17, 18]. Other studies have investigated the role in neurocognitive functions of other sites, such as white matter [19]; unfortunately, owing to its ubiquitous anatomical location in the brain, the white matter cannot be avoided during panencephalic radiotherapy.

In this study, we describe the distribution of PCNSL lesions within the brain, both on diagnosis and at the time of recurrence, in relation to the hippocampus, in order to evaluate the feasibility of hippocampal sparing during WBRT with a view to reducing neurocognitive impairment and personalizing radiation treatment.

Adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) affected by PCNSL with exclusively intracranial disease were eligible. The eligibility criteria for radiation therapy were: ECOG Performance Status ≤ 4, pathologically proven diagnosis of PCNSL and follow-up of at least one year to evaluate the site of any recurrences in relation to the hippocampus. Exclusion criteria were: positive HIV serology or presence of immunodeficiency syndromes, degenerative neurological or neuropsychiatric pathology at the time of diagnosis of PCNSL, pregnancy and heart, respiratory or kidney failure. The study received ethics approval from the ethical committee of our institute.In order to evaluate the spatial distribution of PCNSL lesions in relation to the hippocampus, we retrospectively analyzed the simulation CT scans and MRI data-set of patients who had undergone WBRT from 2010 to January 2020. Brain MRI images before radiotherapy, and post-treatment in cases of relapse, were imported into the Varian Eclipse treatment-planning system and co-registered with the simulation CT for contouring. T1-weighted, post-contrast, axial images were used to outline the hippocampus and PCNLS lesions manually. The hippocampus was contoured according to the atlas of neuroanatomy and to guidelines on T1-weighted MRI axial sequences [20, 21]. We contoured lesions, both on diagnosis and at the time of disease relapse; all contours were discussed with a neuroradiologist. Three 3-dimensional envelopes surrounding the hippocampus at distances of 5, 10 and 15 mm were created, in accordance with Metha’s 2007 study [13] (Fig. 1). Each lesion was assigned to a given range of distance from the hippocampus (<5mm, 5-15 mm, >15mm) or classified as situated inside it. Moreover, its location within the brain parenchyma was recorded, so that each lesion fell into a specific category for statistical analysis.

Qualitative variables were expressed as absolute frequencies and percentages. The distances of the lesions from the hippocampus were described by means of descriptive statistics. Inclusion of the lesions within the pre-defined margins around the hippocampus was evaluated by means of McNemar’s chi-square test and χ2 for paired samples (pre- and post-treatment).

We examined the post-contrast T1-weighted MRI scans of 43 patients, performed before radiotherapy and on relapse, for a total of 66 primary lesions and 35 recurrences.

In the subset of primary lesions, we recorded the site of PCNLS lesions within the brain parenchyma; the most common location was deep brain (31.0%, n= 21) followed by parietal and frontal lobes (each site 20.0%, n= 13), temporal lobe (11.0%, n=7), cerebellum, occipital lobe and orbital region (each 6.0%, n= 4) (Table 1). We observed that: 11/66 lesions (16.7%) were located less than 5mm from the hippocampus, 9/66 (13.6%) involved the hippocampus, 36/66 lesions (54.5%) were more than 15 mm, and 10 (15.2%) were 5-15 mm from the hippocampus (Fig. 2). In the subgroup of lesions localized in the hippocampus and less than 5 mm from it, 13/20 (65.0%) were in the deep brain, 2/20 (10.0%) in the parietal lobe, 2/20 in the occipital lobe, 2/20 (10.0%) in the cerebellum and 1/20 (5.0%) in the temporal lobe. Of the 36 lesions localized more than 15 mm from the hippocampus, 11 (30.5%) were in the frontal lobe, 9 in the parietal lobe (25.0%) 5 in the deep brain (13.9%), 4 in the temporal lobe (11.1%), 4 in the orbital region (11.1%), 2 in the occipital lobe (5.6%) and only 1 (2.8%) in the cerebellum. Regarding lesions localized between 5 and 15 mm from the hippocampus, 3 (30%) were localized in the deep brain, 2 (20%) in the frontal lobe, 2 (20%) in the parietal lobe, 2 (20%) in the cerebellum, and only 1 (10%) in the temporal lobe.

Table 1

Locations of lesions on diagnosis
Location	N°	%
Deep brain	21	31.0
Parietal lobe	13	20.0
Frontal lobe	13	20.0
Temporal lobe	7	11.0
Occipital lobe	4	6.0
Cerebellum	4	6.0
Orbital region	4	6.0
Total	66	100.0

With regard to the 35 recurrences, 12/35 (34.3%) involved the deep brain, 9/35 (25.7%) the frontal lobe, 4/35 (11.4%) the parietal lobe, 3/35 (8.5%) the occipital lobe, 3/35 (8.5%) the cerebellum, 1/35 (2.9%) the temporal lobe, 1/35 (2.9%) the orbital region, 1/35 (2.9%) the spinal cord and 1/35 (2.9%) the hippocampus. Fourteen of the 35 (40%) relapses occurred in the same location as the primary lesions; 6/14 (42.8%) of these were in the hippocampus or less than 5 mm from it. Twenty-one out of 35 (60%) recurrences were observed in sites different from that of the primary lesion; 10/21 (47.6%) of these were near to the hippocampus. Thus, 16/35 (45.7%) recurrences were observed in the hippocampal region or less than 5 mm from it (Fig. 3). We observed that 4/36 lesions (11.1%) located more than 15 mm from the hippocampus on diagnosis relapsed at a distance of less than 5 mm from the hippocampus, and none relapsed in the hippocampus. The McNemar test showed no correlation between the pre-treatment and post-treatment locations of the lesions, on considering a threshold distance of 5 mm from the hippocampus (p-value 0.55). The overall rate of response to treatment was evaluated by means of the McNemar test, which showed a p-value = 0.001 (the null hypothesis was no difference between the number of lesions before and after treatment). A similar pattern emerged in the different sub-groups (>15 mm: p-value = 0.012; 15 mm to 5 mm: p-value = 0.016; <5 mm: p-value = 0.52; hippocampal lesion: p-value = 0.013).

In this study, we analyzed the sites of PCNSL lesions in relation to the hippocampus in order to evaluate the possibility of sparing the hippocampal region, so as to prevent neurocognitive impairment and personalize treatments. Over the past several decades, it has been established that the hippocampus plays an essential role in memory function [22]. Much evidence has suggested that the pathogenesis of radiation-induced NCF deficit involves radiation-induced injury to proliferating neuronal progenitor cells in the subgranular zone of the hippocampus [23, 24]. Small doses of radiation cause apoptosis in the subgranular zone, whereas little or no apoptosis is observed in other areas of the cerebrum [22, 25]. Modern intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques have therefore been developed to avoid conformally the hippocampal neural stem-cell niche during WBRT, in order to try to reduce neurocognitive deficit after WBRT. Indeed, IMRT techniques enable the hippocampus to be spared while achieving acceptable target coverage and homogeneity [26]. On the basis of this evidence, several studies have been carried out in order to assess the feasibility of sparing the hippocampal volume. In 2007, Metha et al. [13] found that only 3% of 270 metastases were located in proximity to the hippocampus, thus leading to the conclusion that the hippocampal volume could be spared. An additional study was conducted by Gondi in 2010; this showed that 91% of newly diagnosed patients with brain metastases were eligible for hippocampal sparing (HS) WBRT [20]. The role of HS in reducing NCF deficit during panencephalic radiotherapy has been demonstrated in several recent trials, such as the RTOG 0933 trial [26]. These trials have shown that HS WBRT has fewer adverse neurocognitive effects than WBRT alone. In addition, in the recently published phase III study by Paul D. Brown et al., sparing the hippocampal region in the panencephalic treatment of patients with brain metastases proved significantly beneficial in terms of preserving neurocognitive functions [14].To our knowledge, the present study is the first in which the sites of PCNSL lesions have been analyzed with a view to evaluating the possibility of routinely sparing the hippocampal region during whole-brain radiotherapy, in order to preserve NCFs and enable personalized treatment. We observed that, at the time of diagnosis, 30% of lesions either involved the hippocampus or were located within 5 mm of it. Moreover, when we analyzed the sites of disease recurrence, we observed that 14 lesions (40%) recurred at the site of the primary tumor, while 21 (60%) were in different locations. Globally, 16/35 (45.7%) recurrences were observed in the hippocampal region or less than 5 mm from it; 4/36 lesions (11.1%) that were located more than 15 mm from the hippocampus at the time of diagnosis relapsed at a distance of less 5 mm from it, but none of these relapsed in the hippocampus. Considering that only one of the lesions located in the hippocampal region at the time of diagnosis recurred in the hippocampus and that, on diagnosis, 30% of lesions were situated in the hippocampus or within 5 mm of it, we can conclude that routine hippocampal sparing is not feasible. We could, however, hypothesize sparing the hippocampal region if the lesion is located more than 15 mm from the hippocampus. The clinical incidence of hippocampal or perhippocampal lesions after conformal-avoidance WBRT needs to be elucidated in a prospective clinical trial, in order to clarify the benefits and risks of hippocampal sparing during WBRT in selected cases. We also recorded the location of PCNSL lesions within the brain parenchyma, and found that the most common sites of both primary lesions and relapses were in the deep brain; this finding is at variance with the literature reports.

Our study does not support the routine sparing of the hippocampal region; however, this approach could be considered in selected patients, when the PCNSL is more than 15 mm from the hippocampus.

WBRT: whole-brain radiation therapy

PCNSL: primary central nervous system lymphoma

NCFs: neurocognitive functions

NHL: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

IMRT: Modern intensity-modulated radiotherapy

HS : hippocampal sparing

• Ethical Approval and Consent to participate

the study had the Ethical Approval and the Consent to participate

• Consent for publication

the study had the Consent for publication

• Availability of supporting data

All supporting data is available

• Competing interests

I haven't Competing interests

• Funding

it's an unfunded study

• Authors' contributions

all authors made the same contribution

• Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Mufti ST, Baeesa SS, Al-Maghrabi JA. Primary intracranial lymphomas Asian. J Neurosurg. 2016;11(3):232–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/1793-5482.145082.
Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Fulop J, Liu M, Blanda R, Kromer C, Wolinsky Y, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. (2015) CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012. Neuro Oncol. Volume17,Issue suppl_4,Pages iv1–iv62.https:// 10.1093/neuonc/nov189.
Ferreri AJM, Marturano E. Primary CNS lymphoma. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2012;25:119–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beha.2011.12.001.
Gavrilovic IT, Hormigo A, Yahalom J, De Angelis LM, Abrey LE. Long-term follow-up of high-dose methotrexate-based therapy with and without whole brain irradiation for newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(28):4570–4. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.6910.
De Angelis LM, Iwamoto FM. (2006) An update on therapy of primary central nervous system lymphoma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program;1:311–6.https//doi.org/ 10.1182/asheducation-2006.1.311.
Bataille B, Delwail V, Menet E, Vandermarco P, Ingrand I, Wager M, et al. Primary intracerebral malignant lymphoma: Report of 248 cases. J Neurosurg. 2000;92(2):261–6. https://10.3171/jns.2000.92.2.0261.
Lai R, Roseblum MK, De Angelis LM. (2002) Primary CNS lymphoma: a whole- brain disease? Neurology;59(10):1557-62.https://10.1212/01.wnl.0000034256.20173.ea.
Shibamoto Y, Hayabuchi N, Hiratsuka J, Tokumaru S, Shirato H, Sougawa M, Oya N, Uematsu Y, Hiraoka M. Is whole-brain irradiation necessary for primary central nervous system lymphoma? Patterns of recurrence after partial irradiation. Cancer. 2002;97:261. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11035.
De Angelis LM, Seiferheld W, Schold SC, Fisher B, Schultz CJ. Combination Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy for Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Study 93-10. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4643–8. .https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.11.013.
Neuwelt EA, Guastadisegni PE, Vallyay P, et al. Imaging changes and cognitive out come in primary CNS lymphomas after enhanced chemotherapy delivery. Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:258–65.
Abrey LE, Yahalom J, De Angelis LM. Long Term survival in primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(3):859–63. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.3.859.
Harder H, Holtel H, Bromberg JE, Poortmans P, Haaxama-Reiche H, Kluin-Nelemans HC, Menten J, van den Bent MJ. Cognitive status and quality of life after treatment for primary CNS lymphoma. Neurology. 2004;62(4):544–7. .https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.62.4.544.
Ghia A, md,* Wolfgang, Tomé A. ph.d.,* Sayana Thomas, b.s.,* George Cannon, m.d.,* Deepak Khuntia, m.d.,* John S. Kuo, m.d., ph.d.,† and Minesh P. Mehta, m.d.* Departments of *Human Oncology and †Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. (2007) Distribution of brain Metastases in relation to the Hippocampus: Implications for neurocognitive functional preservation. International Journal of Radiation Oncology.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.02.016.
Brown PD, Gondi V,Pugh S, Tome WA, Wefel JS,Armstrong TS,Bovi JA,Robinson C, Konski A,Khuntia D, Grosshans D, Benzinger TLS, Bruner D, Gilbert MR, Roberge D, Kundapur V, Devisetty K, Shah S, Usuki K, Anderson BM, Stea B, Yoon H, Li J, Laack NN, Kruser TJ, Chmura SJ, Shi W, Deshmukh S, Mehta MP, Kachnic LA. Hippocampal Avoidance During Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Plus Memantine for Patients With Brain Metastases: Phase III Trial NRG Oncology CC001. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(10):1019–29. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02767.
Abayomi OK. Pathogenesis of irradiation-induced cognitive dysfunction. Acta Oncol. 1996;35(6):659–63. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841869609083995.
Barani IJ, Benedict SH, Lin PS. Neural stem cells: implications for the conventional radiotherapy of central nervous system malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(2):324–33. / 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.01.033.
Wagner H, Ali A, Glantz M, Blakeley A. (2017) Role of Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain Radiation Therapy (HA-WBRT) in Patients with Primary CNS Lymphoma (PCNSL) International journal of radiation oncology. Volume 99,Issue 2,Supplement,E424.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.1617.
Tsai PF, Yang CC, Chuang CC, Huang TY, Wu YM, Pai PC, Tseng CK, Wu TH, Shen YL, Lin SY. Hippocampal dosimetry correlates with the change in neurocognitive function after hippocampal sparing during whole brain radiotherapy: a prospective study. Radiat Oncol. 2015. 10:253.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0562-x.
Bovi JA, Pugh SL, Sabsevitz D, Robinson CG, Paulson E, Mehta MP, Gondi V, Kundapur V, Shahin MS, Chao ST, Machtay M, DeNittis AS, Laack NN,.Greenspoon JN, Moore KN, Huang J, Dominello MM,K achnic LA(2019) Pretreatment Volume of MRI-Determined White Matter Injury Predicts Neurocognitive Decline After Hippocampal Avoidant Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: Secondary Analysis of NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0933. Radiat Oncol. 4(4): 579–86.https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.adro.2019.07.006.
Gondi V, Tolakanahalli R, Mehta MP, et al. “Hippocampal- sparing whole-brain radiotherapy: a “how-to” technique using helical tomotherapy and linear accelerator-based intensity- modulated radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2010;78:1244–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.01.039.
Chera BS, Amdur RJ, Patel P,.Mendenhall WM. A radiation oncologist’s guide to contouring the hippocampus. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32(1):20–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e318178e4e8.
Scoville WB, Milner B. (2000) Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. 1957. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci.;12(1):103–13.https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.12.1.103-a.
Shinichiro Mizumatsu 1. Monje ML, Morhardt DR, Rola R, Palmer TD, John R Fike. (2003) Extreme sensitivity of adult neurogenesis to low doses of X-irradiation. Cancer Res;63(14):4021-7.
Raber J, Rola R,LeFevour A, Morhardt D, Curley J, Mizumatsu S, VandenBerg SR, Fike JR. Radiation-induced cognitive impairments are associated with changes in indicators of hippocampal neurogenesis. Radiat Res. 2004;162(1):39. 47.https/doi.org/10.1667/rr3206.
Nagai R, Tsunoda S, Hori Y, Asada H. (2000) Selective vulnerability to radiation in the hippocampal dentate granule cells Surg Neurol 53(5):503–6; discussion 506-7.https://doi.org/ 10.1016/s0090-3019(00)00214-7.
Gondi V, Tome WA, Marsh J, Struck A, Ghia A, Turian JV, Bentzen SM, Kuo JS, Khuntia D, Mehta MP. (2010) Estimated risk of perihippocampal disease progression after hippocampal avoidance during whole-brain radiotherapy: safety profile for RTOG 0933. Clinical Trial Radiother Oncol;95(3):327–31.httpos://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.02.030.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 02 Oct, 2023

Read the published version in Radiation Oncology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
20 Feb, 2022
Reviews received at journal
14 Jan, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
14 Jan, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
12 Jan, 2022
First submitted to journal
11 Jan, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Whole-brain Irradiation With or Without Hippocampal Sparing in Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: Impact of Sites of Primary Lesions and Recurrences on Personalized Treatment

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Methods And Materials

3. Statistical Analysis

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

• Ethical Approval and Consent to participate

• Consent for publication

• Availability of supporting data

• Competing interests

• Funding

• Authors' contributions

• Acknowledgements

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1