Post-marketing surveillance safety analysis of patients with CNS malignancies treated with tumor treating fields (TTFields) therapy between 2011–2022.

Abstract

2049 Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) has a poor prognosis. Standard treatments are associated with systemic toxicity, further increasing the disease burden in this patient population. Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt cancer cell processes which affect cancer cell viability, and are generated by a portable, wearable device which is locoregional and noninvasive. TTFields therapy was approved by the FDA for the treatment of newly diagnosed (nd) and recurrent (r) GBM based on the phase 3 EF-14 (TTFields therapy 200 kHz + temozolomide) and EF-11 (TTFields 200 kHz) studies, respectively. TTFields therapy is also approved for pleural mesothelioma. We report an updated global, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) safety analysis of patients with CNS malignancies treated with TTFields therapy over an 11-year timeframe. This analysis represents the largest dataset of TTFields therapy use to date. Methods: Unsolicited safety data were collected from routine post-marketing activities for patients (N = 25,898) in North America, Europe, Middle East and Africa and Japan, from October 2011 to March 2022. AEs were stratified by diagnosis, age, and sex and categorized using MedDRA version 25.1. Results: Diagnoses were ndGBM (68%), rGBM (26%), anaplastic astrocytoma/oligodendroglioma (4%) and other (2%). Baseline demographics were reflective of real-world practice: median (range) age was 59 (3–103) years; two-thirds of patients were male. Most (69%) patients were 18–65 years; 0.4% were < 18 years, and 30% were > 65 years. All-cause and TTFields-related AEs occurred in 18,798 (73%) and 14,599 (56%), patients, respectively. The most common device-related AE was skin reaction (43% patients overall). There were no major differences in occurrence of this AE between pediatric, adult, and elderly groups (39%, 42%, and 45%, respectively), or between males and females (41% and 46%, respectively). The incidence of device-related skin reactions was higher in ndGBM than rGBM (46% vs 34%, respectively), in line with previous reports. Only 405 (2%) of patients overall reported an AE of treatment-related ‘quality-of-life decreased’. In line with the phase 3 studies, there were no treatment-related systemic AEs. Conclusions: In this updated global PMS safety analysis, TTFields therapy demonstrated a tolerable safety profile in patients with CNS malignancies, with no new safety findings. In line with previous real-world and clinical data, most AEs were localized, non-serious skin events, which were consistent between age groups. Such events can typically be managed easily using prophylaxis and topical therapies, together with optimization of caregiver techniques. Importantly, no TTFields therapy-related systemic AEs were detected.