Patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) still have a very poor prognosis. Several treatment modalities have been investigated in an attempt to improve the management of MBM. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of current treatments for MBM on patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes, and to provide treatment recommendations for this patient population. A literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to January 8, 2019. Original articles published since 2010 describing patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes of adult MBM patients treated with clearly defined systemic therapy were included. Information on basic trial demographics, treatment under investigation and outcomes (overall and progression‐free survival, local and distant control and toxicity) were extracted. We identified 96 eligible articles, comprising 95 studies. A large variety of treatment options for MBM were investigated, either used alone or as combined modality therapy. Combined modality therapy was investigated in 71% of the studies and resulted in increased survival and better distant/local control than monotherapy, especially with targeted therapy or immunotherapy. However, neurotoxic side‐effects also occurred more frequently. Timing appeared to be an important determinant, with the best results when radiotherapy was given before or during systemic therapy. Improved tumor control and prolonged survival can be achieved by combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. However, more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are warranted to generate proper evidence that can be used to change the standard of care for patients with MBM.

Background IDH1/2 wildtype (IDHwt) glioma WHO grade 2 and 3 patients with pTERT mutation and/or EGFR amplification and/or +7/−10 chromosome gain/loss have a similar overall survival time as IDHwt glioblastoma patients, and are both considered glioblastoma IDHwt according to the WHO 2021 classification. However, differences in seizure onset have been observed. This study aimed to compare the course of epilepsy in the two glioblastoma subtypes. Methods We analyzed epilepsy data of an existing cohort including IDHwt histologically lower-grade glioma WHO grade 2 and 3 with molecular glioblastoma-like profile (IDHwt hLGG) and IDHwt glioblastoma patients. Primary outcome was the incidence proportion of epilepsy during the disease course. Secondary outcomes included, among others, onset of epilepsy, number of seizure days and antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy. Results Out of 254 patients, 78% (50/64) IDHwt hLGG and 68% (129/190) IDHwt glioblastoma patients developed epilepsy during the disease (p=0.121). Epilepsy onset before histopathological diagnosis occurred more frequently in IDHwt hLGG compared to IDHwt glioblastoma patients (90% versus 60%, p<0.001), with a significantly longer median time to diagnosis (3.5 versus 1.3 months, p<0.001). Median total seizure days was also longer for IDHwt hLGG patients (7.0 versus 3.0, p=0.005), and they received more often AED polytherapy (32% versus 17%, p=0.028). Conclusions Although the incidence proportion of epilepsy during the entire disease course is similar, IDHwt hLGG patients show a significantly higher incidence of epilepsy before diagnosis and a significantly longer median time between first seizure and diagnosis compared to IDHwt glioblastoma patients, indicating a distinct clinical course.

Purpose Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide. Methods In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2–4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity. Results We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26–51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20–41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46–1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide. Conclusion Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2–4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity. RESULTS We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI: 26–51%) versus 30% (95%CI: 20–41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.46–1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide. CONCLUSION Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.