Clinical outcomes for pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma patients: an institutional experience

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2535551/v1

Purpose

Report our institutional experience with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA) to contribute to limited data on optimal management.

Methods

Patients with pathologically confirmed PXA treated at our institution between 1990 and 2019 were identified. Demographic information, tumor grade, treatment variables, and clinical outcomes were collected from patient charts. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to summarize two primary outcome measurements: progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Outcomes were stratified by tumor grade and extent of resection. Cox regression and log-rank testing were performed.

Results

We identified 17 patients with pathologically confirmed PXA. Two patients were excluded due to incomplete treatment information or < 6m of follow-up; 15 patients were analyzed (median follow-up 4.4y). Six patients had grade 2 PXA and 9 had grade 3 anaplastic PXA. The 2-year and 5-year PFS for the cohort was 57% and 33%, respectively; 2-year and 5-year OS was 93% and 75%, respectively. Patients with grade 2 tumors exhibited superior PFS compared to those with grade 3 tumors (2-year PFS: 100% vs. 28%, 5-year PFS: 60% vs. 14%), hazard ratio, 5.09 (95% CI:1.06–24.50), p = 0.02. Undergoing a GTR also yielded improved outcomes (hazard ratio: 0.38, p = 0.15). All but one (89%) of the grade 3 patients underwent RT.

Conclusion

The poor survival of the cohort, especially with grade 3 tumors, suggests the need for more aggressive treatment, including maximal resection followed by intensive adjuvant therapy. Better prognostics of tumor recurrence are needed to guide the use of adjuvant therapy.

PXA

anaplastic

surgery

radiotherapy

BRAF

V600E mutation

Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA) is a rare astrocytic tumor that mainly affects children and young adults, with a mean age of diagnosis of 29 [1]. First described by Kepes et al. in 1979 [2], PXA carries a generally favorable prognosis with a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of > 75% and progression-free survival (PFS) rate of > 60% [1]. Most PXA cases are WHO grade 2, which can often be definitively treated with surgery alone. Anaplastic grade 3 variants (aPXA) have higher potential for CSF spread and a higher likelihood of recurrence after initial resection, leading to poorer PFS and OS [1, 3–5].

Given the rarity of the tumor, there is a lack of data to guide appropriate treatment. Based on the results of several retrospective single- and multi-institution studies correlating gross total resection (GTR) with longer PFS [3, 5–8], GTR, if feasible and safe, has often been considered the mainstay of treatment. This aligns with the contemporary classification of PXA as a circumscribed astrocytic glioma [9]. The role of adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the treatment of PXA remains uncertain. Despite the paucity of data, several authors suggest a possible benefit of radiotherapy in the setting of residual or recurrent disease, as well as in more aggressive cases of aPXA [3, 5, 7, 8, 10–15]. The use of traditional alkylating chemotherapy agents like temozolomide (TMZ) has shown limited efficacy against PXA [5, 7, 13, 16].

Molecular characterization of PXA tumors has identified a common missense mutation (V600E) in the BRAF kinase gene that may be a driving mutation, present in roughly two-thirds of PXA tumors [17], making BRAF molecular profiling an important diagnostic tool for PXA. BRAF V600E mutation status also appears to have prognostic value, with longer OS noted for BRAF V6000E-mutated PXAs [5]. This molecular finding is more frequently observed in WHO grade 2 PXA than in WHO grade 3 [1, 18]. More recently, BRAF inhibition (BRAFi), either alone or in combination with MEK inhibition (MEKi), has shown promise in patients harboring the V600E mutation in several case reports, case series, and most notably, the VE-BASKET phase II clinical trial of BRAFi agent, vemurafenib, and the ROAR phase II trial of the BRAFi agent, dabrafenib, and the MEKi agent, trametinib [19–26].

In the present study, we report our institutional experience with PXA along with an analysis of the demographic, prognostic, and treatment-related variables. We aim to better understand optimal clinical management of patients with this rare brain tumor type.

Patient identification

We identified patients treated for PXA at our institution between 1990 and 2019. Patients for whom histopathologic analysis of tumor tissue showed PXA as the most likely diagnosis were included for further analysis.

Data collection

Clinical, pathologic, and treatment characteristics were collected from patient charts. Tumor grade was determined based on histopathologic analysis. Extent of resection was defined by the surgeon’s impression and radiographic assessment. Lesions that were completely resected were classified as gross total resection (GTR). Lesions that were incompletely resected, “debulked,” or with unknown extent of resection were classified as subtotal resection (STR). Date of tumor recurrence was determined by imaging concern for recurrent disease. Radiotherapy administered up to 4 months after initial surgery was considered adjuvant; when administered after recurrence, it was considered as salvage treatment.

Statistical analysis

The primary outcome measurements in this study were PFS and OS. PFS was defined as time from pathologic diagnosis to tumor progression or recurrence, or time to death or last known radiologic follow-up. OS was defined as time from pathologic diagnosis to death or last known clinical follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to summarize PFS and OS. Outcomes were analyzed according to important pathologic and treatment variables including tumor grade, BRAF V600E mutational status, extent of resection, and use of adjuvant therapy. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to assess the independent effects of these variables. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Patient & tumor characteristics

We identified seventeen adult patients with pathologically confirmed PXA. Two patients were excluded due to incomplete treatment information or insufficient follow-up (< 6 months). Fifteen patients were analyzed (Table 1). The median age at diagnosis was 35 years (range: 10–71), with five females (33%) and ten males (67%). Of the fifteen included patients, six had grade 2 PXA (40%), and nine had grade 3 anaplastic PXA (60%). Seven patients were BRAF V600E-positive (47%), one was BRAF V600E-negative, and seven were not tested.

Table 1

Characteristics of patients. Abbreviations: SRS = stereotactic radiosurgery, EBRT = external beam radiation therapy
Variable	Number (%)
Age (years)
Median	35
Range	10–71
Sex
Male	10 (67)
Female	5 (33)
Grade
2	6 (40)
3	9 (60)
BRAF mutation
Yes	7 (47)
No	1 (7)
Not tested	7 (47)
Gross Total Resection
Yes	7 (47)
No	6 (40)
Unknown	2 (13)
Radiation Therapy
Adjuvant	8 (53)
Salvage	3 (20)
No	4 (27)
Radiation Therapy (n = 11)
SRS	1 (10)
EBRT	10 (90)
Median Dose (Gy)	60.0
Concurrent Temozolomide	8 (72)

Treatment characteristics

All patients underwent initial surgical resection, with seven GTR (47%). In total, eight patients received adjuvant RT (53%), three received salvage RT (20%), and four did not receive any RT (27%). Eight of the nine (89%) grade 3 PXA patients and three of the six grade 2 PXA patients (50%) received RT. Eight patients received concurrent TMZ (72%). Four of the seven BRAF V600E-positive patients (57%) received targeted BRAFi therapy.

Survival outcomes

Median follow-up for all included patients was 4.4 years (range: 1.2–23.5 years). Ten patients experienced tumor progression or recurrence–including two of the six grade 2 patients and eight of the nine grade 3 patients. Median time to progression/recurrence was 1.9 years. The two-year and five-year OS for the entire cohort was 93% and 75%, respectively (Fig. 1). The two-year and five-year PFS was 57% and 33%, respectively (Fig. 2).

Patients with grade 2 tumors exhibited superior PFS compared to those with grade 3 tumors (two-year PFS: 100% vs. 28%; five-year PFS: 60% vs. 14%) (Fig. 3); hazard ratio for grade 3 vs. grade 2 tumors was 5.09 (95% CI: 1.06–24.50, p = 0.02). Gross total resection yielded improved PFS compared to STR (two-year PFS: 71% vs. 42%; five-year PFS: 43% vs. 21%) (Fig. 4), but this result was not statistically significant (hazard ratio: 0.38, p = 0.15). BRAF V600E mutational status (positive vs. negative and not tested) and the use of adjuvant therapies were not statistically significant predictors of outcomes.

PXA can be a recalcitrant and malignant tumor, especially in the setting of the grade 3 anaplastic histology [4, 5]. Maximal safe surgical resection may offer adequate disease control without the need for further adjuvant therapy [1]. However, there is a wide range of clinical outcomes including aggressive behavior and/or worse survival [1, 27]. The role of adjuvant radiation and/or systemic therapy following maximal resection in PXA patients remains unclear.

Tumor grade

The prognostic value of the histologic grade of PXA tumors has been well documented across several studies [3, 5, 14, 27], with consistently longer PFS observed in patients with grade 2 tumors. The findings of our current series are in agreement with these past findings as a significant more favorable PFS was noted in patients with grade 2 vs. grade 3 tumors (Fig. 3). The difference in prognosis based on histologic grade suggests that a more aggressive adjuvant treatment strategy may be necessary for aPXA patients.

Extent of resection

The majority of past studies have found that extent of resection has significant prognostic significance in patients with PXA, impacting PFS more profoundly than OS [4, 6–8, 28]. While our study did not find a significant difference in survival outcomes based on extent of resection, the numerical trend favored a survival advantage in patients undergoing GTR (Fig. 4), a finding consistent with existing literature. The lack of significance can likely be partially explained by our relatively small sample size and corresponding lack of statistical power. Our series therefore supports the current clinical management of PXA with initial maximal resection. This aligns with the current conceptualization of PXA as a circumscribed astrocytic tumor, implying potential for cure with surgical resection.

Radiation therapy

The role of radiation therapy in the management of PXA patients has been limited by lack of data, with no previous studies (to our knowledge) finding a significant survival benefit in patients managed with adjuvant or salvage RT. However, many authors have suggested that the use of adjuvant/salvage RT should be considered in cases of recurrent, residual, or metastatic disease [6–8, 14, 29, 30]. This recommendation is supported by several reports showing good disease control in aPXA patients treated with adjuvant RT +/- chemotherapy [10–12, 16]. The patients in our cohort indeed underwent more frequent RT in the setting of characteristics such as anaplastic histology or subtotal resection.

Chemotherapy & BRAF inhibition

Traditional chemotherapy is considered to be minimally effective in the treatment of PXA [1, 4, 13, 16]. However, BRAF inhibiting agents like vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib are an emerging treatment option for the PXA patients harboring the V600E mutation [5]. Several studies have noted the positive prognostic significance of the V600E BRAF mutation [1, 5, 17, 24], which is typically seen in less aggressive tumors [17]. Case reports [19, 21, 22], and more recently longitudinal clinical trials [24, 25], have shown survival benefits for V600E-positive PXA patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. As BRAFi therapy is more consistently employed in the management of V600E-positive PXAs, more robust data on its efficacy may be generated ahead.

Angiomatous PXA

We make note of one patient in the present series who had angiomatous features on pathologic diagnosis, constituting a very rare PXA variant. To our knowledge, only seven cases of angiomatous PXA have been reported in the literature, without a single reported recurrence, underscoring the indolent nature of this variant [31–36]. The one angiomatous PXA patient in our series, a 45-year-old male with a grade 2 tumor, underwent GTR without any adjuvant therapy. He did not experience tumor progression or recurrence for a 22.5 year follow-up, the longest reported follow-up in the literature for angiomatous PXA. This single case adds to the limited body of literature on this variant, providing further evidence of the indolent behavior of angiomatous PXA.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, it is a single-institution, retrospective study. Given the rarity of PXA, this is a difficult limitation to overcome, yet our series is still one of the largest reported in the literature. Next, perhaps as a tertiary care center, we had a higher proportion of grade 3 aPXA patients (60%) compared to the 25–30% reported in the wider population [37]. While this may limit the generalizability of our series, it provides important outcomes data on the more aggressive variants of aPXA. Finally, molecular profiling of tumors has only recently become common practice meaning only the patients in our cohort diagnosed later in the follow-up period have a recorded BRAF V600E mutational status, precluding robust analysis of the prognostic significance of BRAF mutational status.

Our findings align with previous reports of the aggressive nature of grade 3 anaplastic PXA compared to grade 2 PXA. The poor survival of the cohort, especially with grade 3 tumors, suggests the need for more aggressive treatment, including maximal resection followed by intensive adjuvant therapy and when possible, BRAF inhibitor therapy for V600E-positive PXA. Better prognosticators of tumor recurrence are needed to guide the use of adjuvant therapy.

Statements and Declarations

Funding

REDCap is supported at FSM by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science (NUCATS) Institute, Research reported in this publication was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant Number UL1TR001422. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

JJS was supported in part by the Northwestern Medicine Enterprise Data Warehouse.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author Contributions

JJS and SS contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JJS and SS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JJS and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics Approval

Human subjects research was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board, IRB protocol number 00213833.

Shaikh N, Brahmbhatt N, Kruser TJ, et al (2019) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: a brief review. CNS Oncol 8:CNS39. https://doi.org/10.2217/cns-2019-0009
Kepes JJ, Rubinstein LJ, Eng LF (1979) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: a distinctive meningocerebral glioma of young subjects with relatively favorable prognosis. A study of 12 cases. Cancer 44:1839–1852. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197911)44:5<1839::aid-cncr2820440543>3.0.co;2-0
Gallo P, Cecchi PC, Locatelli F, et al (2013) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: long-term results of surgical treatment and analysis of prognostic factors. Br J Neurosurg 27:759–764. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2013.776666
Rutkowski MJ, Oh T, Niflioglu GG, et al (2016) Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma with Anaplastic Features: Retrospective Case Series. World Neurosurg 95:368–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.07.068
Ida CM, Rodriguez FJ, Burger PC, et al (2015) Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma: Natural History and Long-Term Follow-Up. Brain Pathol 25:575–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/bpa.12217
Pahapill PA, Ramsay DA, Del Maestro RF (1996) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: case report and analysis of the literature concerning the efficacy of resection and the significance of necrosis. Neurosurgery 38:822–8; discussion 828–9
Giannini C, Scheithauer BW, Burger PC, et al (1999) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: what do we really know about it? Cancer 85:2033–2045
Rao AAN, Laack NN, Giannini C, Wetmore C (2010) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma in children and adolescents. Pediatr Blood Cancer 55:290–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.22490
Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, et al (2021) The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol 23:1231–1251. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab106
Alexiou GA, Moschovi M, Stefanaki K, et al (2010) Malignant progression of a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma in a child. Neuropediatrics 41:69–71. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1255094
Chang HT, Latorre JGS, Hahn S, et al (2006) Pediatric cerebellar pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma with anaplastic features: a case of long-term survival after multimodality therapy. Childs Nerv Syst 22:609–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-005-0005-3
Dickerman RD (2006) Malignant transformation of a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. Acta Neurochir. 148:98
Mallick S, Benson R, Melgandi W, et al (2018) Grade II Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma; a meta-analysis of data from previously reported 167 cases. J Clin Neurosci 54:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2018.05.003
Perkins SM, Mitra N, Fei W, Shinohara ET (2012) Patterns of care and outcomes of patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: a SEER analysis. J Neurooncol 110:99–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-012-0939-8
McNatt SA, Gonzalez-Gomez I, Nelson MD, McComb JG (2005) Synchronous multicentric pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: case report. Neurosurgery 57:E191; discussion E191. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000164174.07281.f9
Koga T, Morita A, Maruyama K, et al (2009) Long-term control of disseminated pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma with anaplastic features by means of stereotactic irradiation. Neuro Oncol 11:446–451. https://doi.org/10.1215/15228517-2008-112
Dias-Santagata D, Lam Q, Vernovsky K, et al (2011) BRAF V600E mutations are common in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: diagnostic and therapeutic implications. PLoS One 6:e17948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017948
Schindler G, Capper D, Meyer J, et al (2011) Analysis of BRAF V600E mutation in 1,320 nervous system tumors reveals high mutation frequencies in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, ganglioglioma and extra-cerebellar pilocytic astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol 121:397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-011-0802-6
Lee EQ, Ruland S, LeBoeuf NR, et al (2016) Successful Treatment of a Progressive BRAF V600E-Mutated Anaplastic Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma With Vemurafenib Monotherapy. J Clin Oncol 34:e87–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.51.1766
Migliorini D, Aguiar D, Vargas M-I, et al (2017) BRAF/MEK double blockade in refractory anaplastic pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. Neurology 88:1291–1293. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003767
Hyman DM, Puzanov I, Subbiah V, et al (2015) Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations. N Engl J Med 373:726–736. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1502309
Chamberlain MC (2013) Salvage therapy with BRAF inhibitors for recurrent pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: a retrospective case series. J Neurooncol 114:237–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1176-5
Hussain F, Horbinski CM, Chmura SJ, et al (2018) Response to BRAF/MEK Inhibition After Progression With BRAF Inhibition in a Patient With Anaplastic Pleomorphic Xanthoastrocytoma. Neurologist 23:163–166. https://doi.org/10.1097/NRL.0000000000000194
Kaley T, Touat M, Subbiah V, et al (2018) BRAF Inhibition in BRAFV600-Mutant Gliomas: Results From the VE-BASKET Study. J Clin Oncol 36:3477–3484. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9990
Wen PY, Stein A, van den Bent M, et al (2022) Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant low-grade and high-grade glioma (ROAR): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2, basket trial. Lancet Oncol 23:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00578-7
Lukas RV, Merrell RT (2018) BRAF inhibition with concomitant tumor treating fields for a multiply progressive pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. CNS Oncol 7:CNS10. https://doi.org/10.2217/cns-2017-0032
Oh T, Kaur G, Madden M, et al (2014) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytomas: institutional experience of 18 patients. J Clin Neurosci 21:1767–1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2014.04.002
Fouladi M, Jenkins J, Burger P, et al (2001) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: favorable outcome after complete surgical resection. Neuro Oncol 3:184–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/3.3.184
Macaulay RJ, Jay V, Hoffman HJ, Becker LE (1993) Increased mitotic activity as a negative prognostic indicator in pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. Case report. J Neurosurg 79:761–768. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1993.79.5.0761
Lim S, Kim JH, Kim SA, et al (2013) Prognostic factors and therapeutic outcomes in 22 patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 53:281–287. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2013.53.5.281
Sugita Y, Kepes JJ, Shigemori M, et al (1990) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma with desmoplastic reaction: angiomatous variant. Report of two cases. Clin Neuropathol 9:271–278
Takahashi H, Kakita A, Honda Y, et al (1995) Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: New ultrastructural observations. Neuropathology 15:133–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1789.1995.tb00256.x
Lee TT, Landy HJ, Bruce JH (1996) Arteriovenous malformation associated with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. Acta Neurochir 138:590–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01411181
Sugita Y, Hayashi I, Aoki T, Shigemori M (1999) Angiomatous variant of pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma in a patient with a 20‐year history of epilepsy
Hessler RB, Kfoury H, Al-Watban J, Hassounah M (1999) Angiomatous pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma as a component of ganglioglioma. Ann Saudi Med 19:48–51. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.1999.48
Jiang Y-F, Liu Y, Wang Y-L, et al (2016) Angiomatous pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: a case report and literature review. Diagn Pathol 11:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-016-0524-0
Newton HB, Rudà R, Soffietti R (2012) Chapter 36 - Ependymomas, neuronal and mixed neuronal–glial tumors, dysembroblastic neuroepithelial tumors, pleomorphic xanthoastrocytomas, and pilocytic astrocytomas. In: Grisold W, Soffietti R (eds) Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Elsevier, pp 551–567

No competing interests reported.

Clinical outcomes for pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma patients: an institutional experience

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Patient identification

Data collection

Statistical analysis

Results

Patient & tumor characteristics

Treatment characteristics

Survival outcomes

Discussion

Tumor grade

Extent of resection

Radiation therapy

Chemotherapy & BRAF inhibition

Angiomatous PXA

Limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1