Leptomeningeal disease: current diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

INTRODUCTION

Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is a late-stage complication of systemic cancers caused by multifocal metastases to the leptomeninges, which consist of the pia mater, arachnoid, and subarachnoid space. Common neoplastic etiologies of LMD include breast, lung (mainly non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC]), gastro-intestinal, melanoma, primary central nervous system (CNS) cancers (such as medulloblastoma, ependymoma, pineoblastoma, primitive neuroectodermal, or primary CNS lymphoma), lymphoma (mainly non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma [NHL]), leukemia (mainly acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL]), and multiple myeloma [ 1 – 3 ].

Despite advances in targeted radiation and chemotherapy, survival remains poor after diagnosis of leptomeningeal involvement, averaging 3–6 months. Survival varies by etiology, with breast cancer patients having the best prognosis (13–25% survival at one year and 6% at two years) [ 1 , 4 , 5 ]. Predictors of longer survival include younger age of diagnosis, a Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) above 70, long duration of symptoms, controlled systemic disease, lack of encephalopathy or focal neurological deficits on examination, low levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein, and lack of bulky disease on imaging [ 1 , 6 , 7 ].

EPIDEMIOLOGY

In the United States, 1–8% of cancer patients are diagnosed with LMD, with approximately 110,000 cases of LMD per year in the U.S. [ 4 ] LMD is found in 1–5% of patients with solid tumors, and 1–2% of patients with primary brain tumors (Table 1 ). The exact incidence of LMD is difficult to determine, since gross examination at autopsy may overlook signs of LMD, and microscopic pathological inspection may be normal if the seeding is multifocal or if an unaffected area of the CNS is examined. Adenocarcinomas are the most common tumors to metastasize to the leptomeninges. Of the patients with NSCLC, 30–64% have CNS metastases, of which 4–7% have LMD [ 5 , 8 , 9 ].

Incidence and prevalence of LMD are both increasing due to better imaging modalities and improved ability to treat, such as with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors, and whole brain radiation. EGFR mutations are seen in 10–15% of Caucasians and 30–40% of Asian NSCLC cases. ALK gene rearrangements are found in 4–5% of NSCLC [ 10 ]. Overall, 9–25% of patients with small-cell lung cancers demonstrated LMD. CNS involvement is seen clinically in 30% of patients with melanoma, and as high as 75% at autopsy [ 11 ]. Although only 5% of patients with breast cancer develop leptomeningeal involvement, it remains the most common etiology of LMD [ 12 ]. The second most common tumor with LMD is lung cancer. Rare neoplasms, such as retinoblastoma and embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma, can also spread to leptomeninges. Occasionally, LMD originating from sarcomas can also be found, although it is uncommon. Medulloblastomas, ependymomas, and gliomas are tumors of intracranial origin that can spread to the CSF and elicit LMD. However, LMD remains rare in high-grade gliomas due to rapid deterioration that precludes leptomeningeal involvement [ 13 ]. Squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck likewise can spread to the leptomeninges along the cranial nerve tracts. Intracranial metastases accompanied LMD in 98% of patients with a non-leukemic primary cancer [ 14 ].

LMD has also become more frequent with as survival has extended for cancer patients [ 15 ]. The longer a patient bears his or her primary cancer, the higher the prevalence of LMD, as control of non-CNS cancers may allow for more time for the development of CNS metastases. Additionally, the CNS may be a particular repository for some cancer subtypes and/or treatment exposures. For instance, ALK gene arrangements characterizing a subtype of NSCLC are normally responsive to crizotinib, but patients treated with this agent are frequently found with intracranial metastases at relapse [ 16 ]. As such, use of large-molecule anti-neoplastic agents with limited CNS and CSF penetration may control systemic disease, but leave LMD untreated behind the blood-brain and blood-CSF barrier.

CLINICAL FEATURES

As malignant cells can spread to any area of the CNS and precipitate symptoms, leptomeningeal disease can have various initial clinical presentations. Common symptoms include cranial nerve deficits, radicular pain, headache, back pain, visual disturbances, diplopia, hearing loss, onset of psychiatric disorders, seizures, or cauda equina syndrome [ 1 , 5 , 17 – 19 ]. Proposed mechanisms leading to these symptoms include direct compression of parenchyma, parenchymal invasion, ischemia secondary to vessel involvement, metabolic strain, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier [ 20 ]. Furthermore, malignant growth can impair flow of CSF in more than half of patients, leading to symptoms of obstructive or communicative hydrocephalus such as nausea, vomiting, somnolence, and positional headaches.

Findings may initially be subtle, such as isolated diplopia or radicular pain, and so are prone to being dismissed in patients who are sick with metastatic disease. However, symptoms progress quickly in severity and evolve along multiple segments of the neuraxis [ 21 ]. The development of such neurological symptoms in a patient with known metastatic disease is highly suspicious for leptomeningeal involvement [ 22 ]. Nevertheless, it remains important to rule out alternative causes, such as parenchymal disease, chemotherapy or radiation side effects, paraneoplastic syndromes, sarcoidosis, or infectious etiologies [ 23 ].

DIAGNOSTICS

Cerebrospinal fluid

Presence of malignant cells on CSF cytology provides the gold-standard for diagnosing leptomeningeal carcinomatosis [ 24 ]. If location of the disease is suggested by symptomatology, fluid should be drawn from nearby. Otherwise, fluid should be drawn from the lumbar or cisternal regions, as this has shown increased sensitivity and specificity compared to intraventricular fluid [ 1 ]. While the first lumbar puncture is only 50–60% sensitive, a repeat collection increases sensitivity to 80%. Additional lumbar punctures increase the sensitivity by 2–5% per collection. Each CSF collection should draw 5–10 mL to ensure a sufficient amount for analysis [ 25 ].

If malignant cells are not seen, analysis of CSF protein levels can be informative [ 1 , 17 ]. Particularly, a protein level above 45 mg/dL is seen in 63–90% of patients with leptomeningeal disease. If levels are very high (> 500 mg/dL), then there is likely blockage or advanced disease. Another useful predictor of carcinomatous pathology is high CSF pressure (> 150 mm), seen in 30–57% of patients. Furthermore, CSF pleocytosis is seen in 33–79% of patients with leptomeningeal disease, and glucose levels are often decreased (< 60 mg/dL) in 24–62% of patients [ 26 ]. Conversely, a normal CSF profile is seen in less than 5% of patients with leptomeningeal disease, and is therefore a strong negative predictor.

Methods for CSF analysis specific to the primary malignancy, such as immuno-histochemistry, flow cytometry, fluorescent in-situ hybridization, or polymerase chain reaction, can further improve detection rates [ 27 – 29 ]. Furthermore, CSF analysis for common tumor-specific antigens, such as CA 15-3 or carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), can be considered if the primary malignancy is known [ 30 – 33 ]. An early study has shown carcinoembryonic antigen to be synthesized intrathecally in 89% of meningeal carcinomas, but also in 47% of intraparenchymal carcinomas, which may lead to misdiagnosis [ 34 ]. CSF levels of the proangiogenic factor, VEGF, when standardized to serum albumin and VEGF levels, have been shown to produce a relatively sensitive (83.3%) and specific (88.4%) method of diagnosis for LMD [ 35 ]. Adjustment for serum levels is important given that leptomeningeal disease can damage the blood-brain barrier and so alter diffusion [ 26 ]. Given these drawbacks and a lack of quality studies, tumor-specific antigens are currently not included in any standardized diagnostic algorithm. Given the variety of sensitive analytical methods, CSF studies continue to provide the most definitive approach to diagnosis of leptomeningeal disease.

Neuro-radiography

Abnormalities on imaging can be found in 70–80% of patients with leptomeningeal disease, although more often in solid versus hematological primary cancers [ 1 , 17 , 36 ]. The imaging modality of choice is high quality, T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadolinium contrast, which has been shown to be more sensitive compared to contrast enhanced CT [ 37 , 38 ]. All imaging should include the brain and spine, as leptomeningeal disease can impact the entire neuraxis.

On MRI, the most common finding is pial enhancement and nodularity, typically over the cerebral convexities, in the basal cisterns, on the tentorium, or in the ventricular ependymal surfaces [ 26 , 38 ]. Common findings on imaging of the spinal cord include patchy involvement of nerve roots with occasional matting and intradural extramedullary nodules, particularly at the cauda equina [ 39 ]. This is particularly important in allowing localization of symptomatic lesions for palliative treatment, such as those causing painful radiculopathy or obstructive hydrocephalus.

Despite advances in imaging techniques and development of novel MRI sequences over the past few decades, early detection of leptomeningeal disease still has not been found to impact overall survival [ 2 ]. Furthermore, these findings are fairly non-specific, and could be seen in alternative etiologies such as meningitis or lumbar puncture induced intracranial hypotension [ 40 ]. Clinical context remains key, and suspicious findings should prompt further analysis in patients with malignancies.

CSF flow studies

Obstructed flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) develops in 30–70% of patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis [ 1 , 41 ]. Compared to conventional MRI, CSF flow studies that utilize Indium-111 DTPA or Technetium-99m labeled albumin are more sensitive for and can better characterize the location of obstructive hydrocephalus, allowing for palliative intervention with focused radiotherapy [ 42 ]. Furthermore, failed therapy for the obstructive lesion is a strong predictor for rapid neurological decline and death [ 1 , 43 ]. CSF flow studies are used prior to initiation of intrathecal chemotherapy, to assess for regions of poor drug penetration or toxic drug accumulation. However, routine analysis of CSF flow for prognostic evaluation remains a rare practice among clinicians.

Diagnostic approach

The majority of diagnostic algorithms, including recent criteria developed by the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group with expertise in LMD, recommend initial evaluation with a CSF profile, CSF cytology, and high quality, gadolinium enhanced MRI [ 7 , 26 , 33 ]. Positive CSF cytology and radiographic evidence is enough to make the diagnosis. A negative initial evaluation should be followed by at least one additional lumbar puncture. However, it has been estimated that up to 25% of patients with symptomatic LMD can have negative diagnostic evaluations. It remains controversial whether these patients should be presumptively treated. In rare cases, biopsy of the leptomeninges or brain can provide an accurate diagnosis, especially if the primary malignancy is unknown [ 17 ].

BIOLOGICAL BASIS

Strategies for spread

The leptomeninges, as a component of the CNS, are more resistant to metastatic disease due to the blood-brain barrier and the blood-CSF barrier. However, the mechanism by which malignant cells bypass these barriers are largely unknown and may vary between primary malignancies. Understanding this process could lead to the development of novel therapeutics that interfere with these mechanisms [ 44 ].

Malignant cell seeding can occur in many ways, including hematogenous spread, venous dissemination, or direct invasion. One possible avenue of entry into the CNS could involve the fenestrated endothelium of the choroid plexus, which allows selective passage of solutes otherwise prohibited by intact barriers and tight junctions [ 45 ]. Subsequently, spread after initial leptomeningeal involvement is facilitated by constant CSF flow and regulated by various cytokines and growth factors.

Among these inflammatory cytokines is VEGF, a key participant in tumor angiogenesis and endothelial cell proliferation. Previous studies have shown VEGF to be an important biomarker for malignant cells in the CSF by inducing transendothelial migration in breast cancer cells. Its elevated CSF levels are very sensitive and specific for LMD diagnosis from breast cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, making VEGF an important drug target [ 46 – 48 ]. For instance, Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF that can be administered systemically for patients with LMD.

Chemokines in the CSF are responsible for regulating proliferation, trafficking, and adhesion of leukocytes. Cells with elevated metastatic potential to the CNS are likely to express the chemokine CXCR4 and its ligand stromal cell-derived factor (SDF)-1. CXCR4/SDF-1 signaling has been shown to induce vascular permeability as well as tumor cell migration and penetration through brain microvascular endothelial cells. Additional chemokines such as CXCR1, CXCR2, and CXCL-8 receptors are often overexpressed in melanoma and promote tumor growth and invasion [ 49 – 51 ].

THERAPY

Current therapy

Leptomeningeal disease is difficult to treat, with generally poor outcomes. Primary treatment goals include improvement of patients’ neurological deficits and quality of life, while avoiding toxicity. Patient selection factors for treatment include high KPS scores and younger age [ 1 ]. While one approach to treatment is shown in Figure 1 , a lack of large randomized controlled studies has made the choice of therapy controversial [ 21 ]. Common therapeutic approaches include radiation therapy to symptomatic anatomical locations and sites where neuroimaging has revealed lesions, followed by intrathecal chemotherapy [ 52 ]. Radiation at the local site of lesion is mainly used to alleviate neurological symptoms, primarily by reducing bulky disease to increase chemotherapeutic perfusion to areas with poor flow. Intrathecal chemotherapy can then reduce tumor cells in the CSF and leptomeningeal deposits, preventing additional seeding [ 53 , 54 ]. Systemic chemotherapy can be added to the treatment regimen to further treat primary tumors and prolong survival (Table 2 ) [ 52 ]. For example, in a retrospective study of 30 patients with NSCLC complicated by LMD, Riess et al. found that receiving a systemic regimen containing pemetrexed, bevacizumab, or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor demonstrated a statistically significant decreased hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.24; p -value = 0.007) [ 55 ]. In addition to disease management, symptomatic treatments include anxiolytics, antidepressants, pain controls, and anticonvulsants.

Radiation

Radiation therapy is an important modality for providing palliative relief to patients with symptomatic leptomeningeal disease. Cranio-spinal radiation is typically avoided, as marrow toxicity compromises the patient's ability to undergo future chemotherapeutic regimens. Patients with cerebral involvement typically receive whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), whereas those with symptomatic spinal lesions are candidates for focal radiotherapy. WBRT is usually planned to involve all neural tissue from the retro-orbit to the upper cervical vertebrae. Radiation is usually administered at a dose of 3 Gy for 10 days, but can vary between 20–40 Gy as patients with better prognosis tend to receive more sessions. However, there has not been a documented benefit in survival from WBRT [ 4 , 56 – 58 ]. Furthermore, WBRT can cause transient somnolence and cognitive decline. On the other hand, focal radiotherapy is well-proven in providing palliative relief, such as reduction of radiculopathies, bulky disease, or obstructive lesions causing hydrocephalus [ 59 ]. Resolution of obstructive lesions also increases penetrance and distribution of intra-thecal chemotherapeutics, and so may precede chemotherapy [ 58 ].

Intra-thecal chemotherapy

Intrathecal administration is the most common method to deliver chemotherapeutic agents in non-nodular and non-bulky LMD, although efficacy compared to systemic administration and choice of regimen are poorly understood due to limited randomized controlled trials [ 21 ]. Chemotherapies are usually hydrophilic, and therefore do not penetrate the blood-brain barrier well (< 5%) [ 20 ]. Methotrexate (MTX), cytarabine (Ara-C), and thiotepa are commonly administered intrathecally for LMD. Methotrexate is the most studied agent, with standard therapy consisting of two cycles of 10–15 mg twice weekly for 4–6 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance therapy with 10–15 mg if cytological clearance is achieved [ 60 ]. Sustained release formulations may offer increased therapeutic value, as a randomized controlled trial of 61 patients with LMD comparing the efficacy of IT sustained-release cytarabine to methotrexate found similar efficacy but significantly increased time to neurological progression and easier-to-manage administration schedule for sustained-release cytarabine [ 61 , 62 ]. Several case reports have also demonstrated decreased progression and improved prognosis of LMD from breast cancer following intrathecal trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets malignant cells that overexpress HER2 [ 63 – 66 ].

Surgical interventions

Surgical interventions include ventriculo-peritoneal shunting and placement of intraventricular catheters. Shunting is used in the setting of obstructive hydrocephalus secondary to bulky LMD [ 20 ]. Catheter placement allows for the delivery of intra-thecal chemotherapy from a subgaleal reservoir (eg. Ommaya), which increases ease of access while providing more uniform drug distribution and more reliable delivery compared to repeated lumbar administration [ 17 , 33 , 67 ]. However, the complication rate remains high, particularly due to catheter failure and infection. Furthermore, no substantial benefits for survival have been seen with this approach [ 1 , 68 ].

Systemic chemotherapy

Based on numerous reports, systemic treatments for LMD are believed to increase patient survival. In fact, some authors consider it to be the more vital component to treatment, and thereby exclude intrathecal therapies altogether in patients with responsive cancers. Systemic treatment allows for a significant reduction in toxicity following administration versus intrathecal treatment, while outcomes remain similar [ 69 , 70 ].

Methotrexate

Methotrexate is an inhibitor or dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), thymidylate synthetase, and many other NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductases (Figure 2 ). By interfering with the purine synthesis pathway and DNA repair, methotrexate is able to regulate cancer cell metabolism. Methotrexate has a high CSF penetration at high doses. A prospective, nonrandomized study compared the results of bolus intrathecal ( n = 15, two doses per week for 4 weeks) versus high-dose ( n = 16, 8 g/m 2 over 4 hours for 2–4 sessions) systemic methotrexate administration in patients with leptomeningeal disease. High-dose systemic methotrexate (8 g/m 2 over 4 hours) showed a higher CSF tumor cell clearance and longer patient survival (13.8 months versus 2.3 months, P = 0.03) compared to bolus intrathecal methotrexate [ 71 ].

Though proven to be beneficial at high doses, intracellular metabolism of methotrexate yields an accumulation of its poly-glutamated form, which is known to be a source of toxicity. Leucovorin, also known as folinic acid, is typically given with methotrexate to rescue cells from any adverse effects without affecting the DHFR blockade [ 72 , 73 ].

Capecitabine

Capecitabine, a chemotherapy whose metabolite can inhibit de novo DNA synthesis, is used to treat gastric, colorectal, and breast cancer [ 74 – 76 ]. While randomized controlled trials are lacking, a retrospective analysis of three patients with refractory LMD originating from breast cancer by Ekenel et al . found that addition of capecitabine provided symptomatic relief and may have improved survival [ 77 ]. Another study examining two cases of LMD from breast cancer and one case of LMD from esophageal cancer suggested benefits of oral capecitabine administration [ 78 ]. Similarly, a case report documents a patient who had no neurological deficits or symptoms and had her LMD cleared on neuroimaging studies after 3.7 years of oral capecitabine monotherapy following WBRT, although she had persistent periodic presence of malignant cells in her CSF [ 79 ]. Further study with randomized control trials is required to understand the efficacy of capecitabine in patients with LMD.

Temozolamide

Temozolamide (TMZ), a DNA alkylating agent, is an established chemotherapy and the standard of care along with radiotherapy for patients with malignant glioma [ 80 , 81 ]. While case reports suggest possible efficacy against LMD secondary to glioma, a randomized control trial of 31 patients by Broniscer et al . showed no impact on outcome [ 82 – 86 ]. Similarly, case reports have suggested efficacy against LMD secondary to paragangliomas [ 87 ], adenocarcinomas [ 88 – 90 ], SCLC [ 91 ], breast cancer [ 62 ], and melanoma [ 92 – 94 ]. However, a phase II randomized controlled trial of 19 patients with LMD from solid tumors was prematurely stopped due to poor accrual, with median time to progression of 28 days (95% CI: 14–42 days), median survival of 43 days (95% CI: 28.7–57.3 days), and only two patients finishing the trial [ 95 ].

Pemetrexed

Pemetrexed is a newer generation multi-targeted anti-folate agent, which is approved for the treatment of NSCLC but has been shown to have broader anti-tumor activity. Compared to methotrexate, pemetrexed requires no inpatient hospitalization, has better tolerability, exhibits a more favorable side effect profile, and possesses fewer drug-drug interactions [ 96 ]. Furthermore, common toxicities such as myelosuppression and gastro-intestinal disturbances can be predicted prior to therapy through analysis of homocysteine and methyl-malonic acid levels and prevented with vitamin supplementation [ 97 ]. As with methotrexate, CNS penetration of the drug is poor, with peak distribution reaching < 5% of plasma concentrations within one to four hours, and therefore has shown limited efficacy or survival benefit in leptomeningeal disease [ 96 ]. Intrathecal administration has not been well explored, with a single animal study finding that intrathecal pemetrexed distributed well and had significant half-life at 1mg/kg dosing [ 98 ].

One ongoing Phase 1 trial ( NCT00424242 ) exploring intrathecal pemetrexed, being conducted at Northwestern University, is enrolling 15 adult patients with LMD. Escalating dosages of pemetrexed beginning at 500 mg/m 2 are administered every 21 days until disease progression. Blood and CSF values are obtained to evaluate drug levels in both compartments. The levels of vascular endothelial growth factor and YKL 40 are assessed as markers of prognosis and response.

Bevacizumab

Bevacizumab (Avastin) is an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody commonly used for leptomeningeal enhancement from NSCLC and breast cancer, in which VEGF is significantly elevated and can indicate poor prognosis [ 46 , 48 , 99 , 100 ]. Furthermore, recent reports have shown that bevacizumab can improve intra-tumor penetration of other chemotherapeutic agents, such as etoposide and cisplatin in breast cancer [ 101 , 102 ], carboplatin and paclitaxel in NSCLC [ 55 , 103 ], and erlotinib in EGFR positive cancers [ 104 ], perhaps by normalizing angiogenesis at the tumor site. Bevacizumab, along with temozolamide, has also shown efficacy against leptomeningeal dissemination of recurrent glioblastoma [ 86 ]. However, the safety profile of bevacizumab is dependent upon excluding and treating brain metastases due to risk of CNS hemorrhage at the tumor site [ 103 , 105 ]. Additionally, initial case series of patients on bevacizumab report minimized radiological evidence of LMD, increased multifocal tumor spread, and dementia secondary to vasculopathy [ 106 , 107 ].

A recent example is a Phase II trial of 39 patients with LMD secondary to breast cancer. Enrolled patients received bevacizumab plus etoposide and cisplatin (BEEP) every three weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The primary endpoints were the clearance of cancer cells in the CSF and improved neurological symptoms. The effect of bevacizumab on etoposide delivery into the CSF was also assessed. The median overall survival of eight enrolled patients was 4.7 months. In five evaluable patients, three exhibited clearance of cancer cells in the CSF. The neurologic progression-free survival was 4.7 months. Hyponatremia, leukopenia, and neutropenia were reported as the most commons adverse events. Bevacizumab did not impact etoposide penetration into the CSF, and etoposide concentrations in the CSF were remarkably lower than those in blood [ 101 ].

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as erlotinib, gefetinib, and afatinib have proven efficacy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC [ 108 , 109 ]. Initial studies suggest that TKI therapy in such patients who develop LMD might extend survival [ 8 , 110 – 112 ]. CNS penetration of these agents at standard doses has been found to be low, with improved penetration and concentration of gefetinib versus erlotinib [ 113 ]. Initial studies of higher dose therapy of erlotinib and gefetinib have shown promising improvements in neurological symptoms, although unacceptable toxicity has been described with 150–200 mg daily erlotinib [ 114 – 116 ]. However, early case series suggest that pulsatile erlotinib at high dosages can achieve increased penetration and efficacy while minimizing toxicity in patients who have progressed on standard TKI therapy [ 117 ]. Afatinib, a second generation TKI, has been shown to improve intrathecal penetration, improve survival in patients with CNS metastases, and elicit cerebral response in patients with LMD [ 118 , 119 ]. Initial studies have also shown third generation TKIs, such as osimertinib (AZD9291) and AZD3759, may also be effective in treating TKI-resistant LMD from mutated EGFR lung cancer [ 120 , 121 ].

Tesevatinib (XL647) is an oral TKI that can cross the blood-brain barrier and deposit in the leptomeninges. In an ongoing multicenter Phase II study ( NCT02616393 ), patients with LMD secondary to EGFR-mutated NSCLC in one arm receive 300 mg of tesevatinib once daily. The primary outcome measure is improvement in clinical activity based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v4.03).

Similarly, NSCLC with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations may be effectively treated by ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib [ 122 , 123 ]. However, patients with LMD remain poorly treated due to poor CNS penetration and subsequent reseeding of metastases [ 16 , 124 , 125 ]. Initial studies of second generation ALK inhibitors, such as ceretinib and alectinib, have shown increased CNS penetration, decreased radiological burden of metastases and LMD, and improvement in symptoms [ 126 – 131 ].

Ceritinib is currently being studied in multiple Phase II and III studies of LMD secondary to NSCLC with documented ALK rearrangement. Phase II trials include ASCEND-2, which treats crizotinib-resistent LMD, and ASCEND-3, which treats ALK-inhibitor naive LMD. Phase III trials include the ASCEND4 trial, where treatment is randomized to platinum pemetrexed versus ceritinib, and the ASCEND5 trial, where patients failing crizotinib are randomized to pemetrexed, docetaxel, or ceretinib [ 131 ]. To date, the ASCEND-2 and ASCEND-3 trial showed improved whole-body overall response rate (ASCEND-2: 38.6%, ASCEND-3: 58.9%) and progression free survival (ASCEND-2: 5.7 months, ASCEND-3: 11.1 months).

Trastuzumab

Trastuzumab is a highly successful targeted monoclonal antibody therapy for HER2 positive cancers, but systemic administration can leave brain metastases and LMD as sanctuary sites [ 132 – 135 ]. Although pooled analysis of 17 patients with LMD from HER2 positive breast cancer suggested that trastuzumab may improve disease progression, randomized clinical trials are lacking [ 136 ]. In an ongoing Phase I and II trial, 34 adult patients were grouped into four cohorts of 3–6, with each cohort receiving varying dosages of IT trastuzumab twice a week for four weeks, then weekly for four weeks, and then every two weeks. Clinical, radiological, and CSF cytological responses are evaluated. Initial results from the Phase I study suggested increased efficacy at high dosages (80 mg), with which the Phase II study is now progressing [ 137 ].

Immunotherapy

Immunotherapies have emerged as promising therapeutic options for several types of cancer including primary malignancies of the CNS and brain metastases. However, data are very limited on the utilization of these treatment modalities in patients with LMD [ 138 ]. There are a few studies reporting on either immune checkpoint blockade, intrathecal interleukin 2 (IL-2), or intrathecal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies.

Checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, monoclonal antibodies that blocks CTLA-4 and PD-1, respectively, remain poorly studied in LMD, despite success and FDA approvals for a number of solid tumors. One case report documents a patient with melanoma-associated LMD who received WBRT followed by ipilimumab and survived for more than 18 months [ 139 ]. On the other hand, there is a case report of radiographic LMD mimicry in a separate melanoma patient treated with ipilimumab [ 140 ]. Regarding nivolumab, one study demonstrated improvement in neurological symptoms (auditory hallucinations) in an advanced NSCLC patient with LMD after treatment administration. Furthermore, the patient went on to exhibit a 7-month-progression-free survival [ 141 ]. Ultimately, further study of these agents is warranted.

Limited results are also reported for intrathecal IL-2 and TIL therapies. In a study of 42 patients with melanoma-associated LMD who were treated with intrathecal IL-2, median survival was found to be 9.1 months (range 0.7–86.2) with 16% of patients surviving more than 24 months [ 142 ]. These are certainly promising results, when compared to the normal median survival of 10 weeks in patients with metastatic melanoma LMD [ 143 ]. Additionally, a case report revealed radiographic disease stabilization in a patient with LMD from metastatic melanoma after administration of intrathecal autologous TILs in combination with intrathecal IL-2. Unfortunately, the regimen did not control the parenchymal brain metastases, which progressed 3 months following therapy [ 144 ]. Although such findings are encouraging, further well-designed randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapies in patients with LMD.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Understanding the biology of LMD has created outlets for new molecular diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Making use of these techniques will provide mechanisms for earlier detection and more effective treatments.

Diagnostics

Looking for CSF biomarkers with high sensitivity can be more effective for early diagnosis of LMD as compared to CSF cytology and MRI. The latter both require a substantial level of disease progression in order to detect abnormalities, thereby contributing to delay in the treatment process. Treatment delay due to the insensitivity of current diagnostic methods can be improved through the analysis of CSF biomarkers. Testing for CSF VEGF has been shown to exhibit 75% sensitivity, 97% specificity, and 94% negative predictive value in breast cancer LMD diagnosis [ 46 ]. Levels of LMD-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which can be low in plasma due to the BBB, can also be analyzed in CSF to follow both progression and development of drug-resistance mutations, and thereby guide therapy [ 145 ]. For example, a recent study by Zhao et al. of seven patients with LMD secondary to EGFR-positive TKI-resistent NSCLC patients found that a majority of patients were EGFR sensitive in CSF but not in plasma, possibly indicating poor TKI CSF penetration [ 146 ].

MicroRNA studies are able to detect abnormal levels of cancer-associated microRNAs in the CSF. In patients with metastatic brain and lung cancer, CSF miR-10b and miR-21levels increased significantly compared to tumors in remission and other non-neoplastic conditions. Using longitudinal microRNA profiles, disease activity and treatment response can be monitored more effectively in patients with NSCLC metastases [ 147 ]. Furthermore, proteomic analysis of CSF can be used to identify peptides expressed in patients with LMD. The MALDI peptide analysis of CSF specifically is able to identify several proteins involved in the host-disease interaction, inflammation, and immunity typically seen in neoplastic processes [ 148 ].

Circulating tumor cells (CTC) in CSF provide another option for early detection of LMD. Using this method, molecular tumor cell markers, such as epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EPCAM), can be used to identify metastatic cells in the CSF for diagnosis. Additionally, CTC methods enable the capture of live tumor cells, which can contribute to the current understanding of LMD biology [ 149 ].

Treatments

Today, LMD is considered a fatal complication of cancer, as survival following diagnosis is devastatingly short. As science continues to reveal the underlying biology of LMD, treatments that reach the meninges and CSF while targeting the relevant molecular markers is essential to making advancements in diagnosis and treatment. Because most patients do not typically die solely from LMD, it is important for future therapies to address the systemic cancer in addition to the metastatic disease to improve survival. Progress is being made through the use of combination therapies, but there is still a large clinical unmet need for innovative treatments following diagnosis.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None.

FUNDING

No funding was received in support of this work.

Author contributions

Gautam Nayar: Literature review, writing, editing; Tiffany Ejikeme: Literature review, writing, editing; Pakawat Chonsathidkiet: Literature review, writing, editing; Aladine A. Elsamadicy: Literature review, writing; Kimberly L. Blackwell: Editing; Jeffrey M. Clarke: Editing; Shivanand P. Lad: Editing; Peter E. Fecci: Corresponding author, editing.

Abbreviations

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Cytarabine

Carcinoembryonic antigen

Confidence interval

Central nervous system

Cerebrospinal fluid

Circulating tumor cells

Dihydrofolate reductase

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

Epithelial cell adhesion molecule

Hazard ratio

Interleukin

Karnofsky Performance Score

Leptomeningeal disease

micro-ribonucleic acid

Magnetic resonance imaging

Methotrexate

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Non-small-cell lung cancer

Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology group

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Temozolomide

Vascular endothelial growth factor

Whole brain radiation therapy

REFERENCES

1 Youmans JR Winn HR 2011 Youmans neurological surgery Philadelphia, PA Saunders/Elsevier 4 v. (xci, 4206, xci p)

2 Clarke JL Perez HR Jacks LM Panageas KS Deangelis LM Leptomeningeal metastases in the MRI era Neurology 2010 74 1449 54 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181dc1a69 20439847 PMC2871005

3 Hyun JW Jeong IH Joung A Cho HJ Kim SH Kim HJ Leptomeningeal metastasis: Clinical experience of 519 cases Eur J Cancer 2016 56 107 14 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.12.021 26841095

4 Groves MD Leptomeningeal disease Neurosurg Clin N Am 2011 22 67 78 vii 10.1016/j.nec.2010.08.006 21109151

5 Chowdhary S Chamberlain M Leptomeningeal metastases: current concepts and management guidelines J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2005 3 693 703 16194457 10.6004/jnccn.2005.0039

6 Beauchesne P Intrathecal chemotherapy for treatment of leptomeningeal dissemination of metastatic tumours Lancet Oncol 2010 11 871 9 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70034-6 20598636

7 Chamberlain M Junck L Brandsma D Soffietti R Ruda R Raizer J Boogerd W Taillibert S Groves MD Rhun EL Walker J van den Bent M Wen PY Leptomeningeal metastases: a RANO proposal for response criteria Neuro Oncol 2017 19 484 492 10.1093/neuonc/now183 28039364 PMC5464328

8 Park JH Kim YJ Lee JO Lee KW Kim JH Bang SM Chung JH Kim JS Lee JS Clinical outcomes of leptomeningeal metastasis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the modern chemotherapy era Lung Cancer 2012 76 387 92 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.11.022 22186628

9 Ozdemir Y Yildirim BA Topkan E Whole brain radiotherapy in management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma associated leptomeningeal carcinomatosis: evaluation of prognostic factors J Neurooncol 2016 129 329 35 10.1007/s11060-016-2179-9 27306442

10 Lee DW Lee KH Kim JW Keam B Molecular Targeted Therapies for the Treatment of Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis: Current Evidence and Future Directions Int J Mol Sci 2016 17 10.3390/ijms17071074 PMC4964450 27399673

11 Smalley KS Fedorenko IV Kenchappa RS Sahebjam S Forsyth PA Managing leptomeningeal melanoma metastases in the era of immune and targeted therapy Int J Cancer 2016 139 1195 201 10.1002/ijc.30147 27084046 PMC4939138

12 Chamberlain MC Leptomeningeal metastasis Curr Opin Neurol 2009 22 665 74 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283322a92 19738466

13 Grah JJ Katalinic D Stern-Padovan R Paladino J Santek F Juretic A Zarkovic K Plestina S Supe M Leptomeningeal and intramedullary metastases of glioblastoma multiforme in a patient reoperated during adjuvant radiochemotherapy World J Surg Oncol 2013 11 55 10.1186/1477-7819-11-55 23496844 PMC3599050

14 Gani C Muller AC Eckert F Schroeder C Bender B Pantazis G Bamberg M Berger B Outcome after whole brain radiotherapy alone in intracranial leptomeningeal carcinomatosis from solid tumors Strahlenther Onkol 2012 188 148 53 10.1007/s00066-011-0025-8 22231633

15 Leal T Chang JE Mehta M Robins HI Leptomeningeal Metastasis: Challenges in Diagnosis and Treatment Curr Cancer Ther Rev 2011 7 319 27 10.2174/157339411797642597 23251128 PMC3523178

16 Gainor JF Ou SH Logan J Borges LF Shaw AT The central nervous system as a sanctuary site in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer J Thorac Oncol 2013 8 1570 3 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000029 24389440

17 Mack F Baumert BG Schafer N Hattingen E Scheffler B Herrlinger U Glas M Therapy of leptomeningeal metastasis in solid tumors Cancer Treat Rev 2016 43 83 91 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.12.004 26827696

18 Kaplan JG DeSouza TG Farkash A Shafran B Pack D Rehman F Fuks J Portenoy R Leptomeningeal metastases: comparison of clinical features and laboratory data of solid tumors, lymphomas and leukemias J Neurooncol 1990 9 225 9 2086737 10.1007/BF02341153

19 Jaeckle KA Neoplastic meningitis from systemic malignancies: diagnosis, prognosis and treatment Semin Oncol 2006 33 312 23 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2006.04.016 16769420

20 Le Rhun E Taillibert S Chamberlain MC Carcinomatous meningitis: Leptomeningeal metastases in solid tumors Surg Neurol Int 2013 4 S265 88 10.4103/2152-7806.111304 23717798 PMC3656567

21 Chamberlain M Soffietti R Raizer J Ruda R Brandsma D Boogerd W Taillibert S Groves MD Le Rhun E Junck L van den Bent M Wen PY Jaeckle KA Leptomeningeal metastasis: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology critical review of endpoints and response criteria of published randomized clinical trials Neuro Oncol 2014 16 1176 85 10.1093/neuonc/nou089 24867803 PMC4136900

22 Chamberlain MC Leptomeningeal metastasis Semin Neurol 2010 30 236 44 10.1055/s-0030-1255220 20577930

23 Chamberlain MC Neoplastic meningitis Oncologist 2008 13 967 77 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0138 18776058

24 Glass JP Melamed M Chernik NL Posner JB Malignant cells in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF): the meaning of a positive CSF cytology Neurology 1979 29 1369 75 573381 10.1212/wnl.29.10.1369

25 Glantz MJ Cole BF Glantz LK Cobb J Mills P Lekos A Walters BC Recht LD Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer: minimizing false-negative results Cancer 1998 82 733 9 9477107 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980215)82:4<733::aid-cncr17>3.0.co;2-z

26 Gleissner B Chamberlain MC Neoplastic meningitis Lancet Neurol 2006 5 443 52 10.1016/S1474-4422 16632315

27 van Oostenbrugge RJ Hopman AH Arends JW Ramaekers FC Twijnstra A Treatment of leptomeningeal metastases evaluated by interphase cytogenetics J Clin Oncol 2000 18 2053 8 10.1200/jco.2000.18.10.2053 10811670

28 Shin SY Lee ST Kim HJ Oh YL Kim SJ Kim WS Kim SH Usefulness of Flow Cytometric Analysis for Detecting Leptomeningeal Diseases in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Ann Lab Med 2016 36 209 14 10.3343/alm.2016.36.3.209 26915608 PMC4773260

29 Chughtai B Sedrakyan A Isaacs A Lee R Te A Kaplan S Long term safety of sacral nerve modulation in medicare beneficiaries Neurourol Urodyn 2015 34 659 63 10.1002/nau.22618 25066920

30 Le Rhun E Kramar A Salingue S Girot M Rodrigues I Mailliez A Zairi F Bakhache E Robin YM Taillibert S Dubois F Bonneterre J Chamberlain MC CSF CA 15-3 in breast cancer-related leptomeningeal metastases J Neurooncol 2014 117 117 24 10.1007/s11060-014-1361-1 24469852

31 Nakagawa H Kubo S Murasawa A Nakajima S Nakajima Y Izumoto S Hayakawa T Measurements of CSF biochemical tumor markers in patients with meningeal carcinomatosis and brain tumors J Neurooncol 1992 12 111 20 1560255 10.1007/BF00172659

32 Kang SJ Kim KS Ha YS Huh SY Lee JH Kim JK Kim MJ Diagnostic value of cerebrospinal fluid level of carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatous metastasis J Clin Neurol 2010 6 33 7 10.3988/jcn.2010.6.1.33 20386641 PMC2851290

33 Kesari S Batchelor TT Leptomeningeal metastases Neurol Clin 2003 21 25 66 12690644 10.1016/s0733-8619(02)00032-4

34 Jacobi C Reiber H Felgenhauer K The clinical relevance of locally produced carcinoembryonic antigen in cerebrospinal fluid J Neurol 1986 233 358 61 3806144 10.1007/BF00313922

35 Weston CL Glantz MJ Connor JR Detection of cancer cells in the cerebrospinal fluid: current methods and future directions Fluids Barriers CNS 2011 8 14 10.1186/2045-8118-8-14 21371327 PMC3059292

36 Chamberlain MC Comprehensive neuraxis imaging in leptomeningeal metastasis: a retrospective case series CNS Oncol 2013 2 121 8 10.2217/cns.12.45 25057975 PMC6169472

37 Chamberlain MC Sandy AD Press GA Leptomeningeal metastasis: a comparison of gadolinium-enhanced MR and contrast-enhanced CT of the brain Neurology 1990 40 435 8 2314584 10.1212/wnl.40.3_part_1.435

38 Collie DA Brush JP Lammie GA Grant R Kunkler I Leonard R Gregor A Sellar RJ Imaging features of leptomeningeal metastases Clin Radiol 1999 54 765 71 10580769 10.1016/s0009-9260(99)91181-9

39 Freilich RJ Krol G DeAngelis LM Neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid cytology in the diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis Ann Neurol 1995 38 51 7 10.1002/ana.410380111 7611725

40 Schumacher DJ Tien RD Friedman H Gadolinium enhancement of the leptomeninges caused by hydrocephalus: a potential mimic of leptomeningeal metastasis AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994 15 639 41 8010263 PMC8334191

41 Chamberlain MC Kormanik PA Prognostic significance of 111indium-DTPA CSF flow studies in leptomeningeal metastases Neurology 1996 46 1674 7 8649568 10.1212/wnl.46.6.1674

42 Mason WP Yeh SD DeAngelis LM 111Indium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid cerebrospinal fluid flow studies predict distribution of intrathecally administered chemotherapy and outcome in patients with leptomeningeal metastases Neurology 1998 50 438 44 9484369 10.1212/wnl.50.2.438

43 Chamberlain MC Radioisotope CSF flow studies in leptomeningeal metastases J Neurooncol 1998 38 135 40 9696363 10.1023/a:1005982826121

44 Grewal J Saria MG Kesari S Novel approaches to treating leptomeningeal metastases J Neurooncol 2012 106 225 34 10.1007/s11060-011-0686-2 21874597

45 Groves MD The pathogenesis of neoplastic meningitis Curr Oncol Rep 2003 5 15 23 12493146 10.1007/s11912-003-0082-y

46 Groves MD Hess KR Puduvalli VK Colman H Conrad CA Gilbert MR Weinberg J Cristofanilli M Yung WK Liu TJ Biomarkers of disease: cerebrospinal fluid vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and stromal cell derived factor (SDF)-1 levels in patients with neoplastic meningitis (NM) due to breast cancer, lung cancer and melanoma J Neurooncol 2009 94 229 34 10.1007/s11060-009-9819-2 19267183

47 Lee TH Avraham HK Jiang S Avraham S Vascular endothelial growth factor modulates the transendothelial migration of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells through regulation of brain microvascular endothelial cell permeability J Biol Chem 2003 278 5277 84 10.1074/jbc.M210063200 12446667

48 Stockhammer G Poewe W Burgstaller S Deisenhammer F Muigg A Kiechl S Schmutzhard E Maier H Felber S Schumacher P Gunsilius E Gastl G Vascular endothelial growth factor in CSF: a biological marker for carcinomatous meningitis Neurology 2000 54 1670 6 10762512 10.1212/wnl.54.8.1670

49 Kadoch C Treseler P Rubenstein JL Molecular pathogenesis of primary central nervous system lymphoma Neurosurg Focus 2006 21 E1 10.3171/foc.2006.21.5.2 17134111

50 Lee BC Lee TH Avraham S Avraham HK Involvement of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 and its ligand stromal cell-derived factor 1alpha in breast cancer cell migration through human brain microvascular endothelial cells Mol Cancer Res 2004 2 327 38 15235108

51 Singh S Nannuru KC Sadanandam A Varney ML Singh RK CXCR1 and CXCR2 enhances human melanoma tumourigenesis, growth and invasion Br J Cancer 2009 100 1638 46 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605055 19401689 PMC2696769

52 Rudnicka H Niwinska A Murawska M Breast cancer leptomeningeal metastasis—the role of multimodality treatment J Neurooncol 2007 84 57 62 10.1007/s11060-007-9340-4 17310266

53 Wasserstrom WR Glass JP Posner JB Diagnosis and treatment of leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors: experience with 90 patients Cancer 1982 49 759 72 6895713 10.1002/1097-0142(19820215)49:4<759::aid-cncr2820490427>3.0.co;2-7

54 Wu YL Zhou L Lu Y Intrathecal chemotherapy as a treatment for leptomeningeal metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer: A pooled analysis Oncol Lett 2016 12 1301 14 10.3892/ol.2016.4783 27446430 PMC4950629

55 Riess JW Nagpal S Iv M Zeineh M Gubens MA Ramchandran K Neal JW Wakelee HA Prolonged survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in the modern treatment era Clin Lung Cancer 2014 15 202 6 10.1016/j.cllc.2013.12.009 24524822 PMC6314305

56 Morris PG Reiner AS Szenberg OR Clarke JL Panageas KS Perez HR Kris MG Chan TA DeAngelis LM Omuro AM Leptomeningeal metastasis from non-small cell lung cancer: survival and the impact of whole brain radiotherapy J Thorac Oncol 2012 7 382 5 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182398e4f 22089116

57 Mix M Elmarzouky R O'Connor T Plunkett R Prasad D Clinical outcomes in patients with brain metastases from breast cancer treated with single-session radiosurgery or whole brain radiotherapy J Neurosurg 2016 125 26 30 10.3171/2016.7.GKS161541 27903186

58 Bruna J Simo M Velasco R Leptomeningeal metastases Curr Treat Options Neurol 2012 14 402 15 10.1007/s11940-012-0182-9 22736147

59 Chamberlain MC Kormanik P Carcinoma meningitis secondary to non-small cell lung cancer: combined modality therapy Arch Neurol 1998 55 506 12 9561978 10.1001/archneur.55.4.506

60 Remon J Le Rhun E Besse B Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in non-small cell lung cancer patients: A continuing challenge in the personalized treatment era Cancer Treat Rev 2017 53 128 37 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.12.006 28110254

61 Glantz MJ Jaeckle KA Chamberlain MC Phuphanich S Recht L Swinnen LJ Maria B LaFollette S Schumann GB Cole BF Howell SB A randomized controlled trial comparing intrathecal sustained-release cytarabine (DepoCyt) to intrathecal methotrexate in patients with neoplastic meningitis from solid tumors Clin Cancer Res 1999 5 3394 402 10589750

62 Hoffmann AL Buhk JH Strik H Neoplastic meningitis from breast cancer: feasibility and activity of long-term intrathecal liposomal Ara-C combined with dose-dense temozolomide Anticancer Res 2009 29 5191 5 20044635

63 Stemmler HJ Mengele K Schmitt M Harbeck N Laessig D Herrmann KA Schaffer P Heinemann V Intrathecal trastuzumab (Herceptin) and methotrexate for meningeal carcinomatosis in HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer: a case report Anticancer Drugs 2008 19 832 6 10.1097/CAD.0b013e32830b58b0 18690096

64 Lu NT Raizer J Gabor EP Liu NM Vu JQ Slamon DJ Barstis JL Intrathecal trastuzumab: immunotherapy improves the prognosis of leptomeningeal metastases in HER-2+ breast cancer patient J Immunother Cancer 2015 3 41 10.1186/s40425-015-0084-y 26380087 PMC4570757

65 Park WY Kim HJ Kim K Bae SB Lee N Lee KT Won JH Park HS Lee SC Intrathecal Trastuzumab Treatment in Patients with Breast Cancer and Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis Cancer Res Treat 2016 48 843 7 10.4143/crt.2014.234 25761487 PMC4843730

66 Bousquet G Darrouzain F de Bazelaire C Ternant D Barranger E Winterman S Madelaine-Chambin I Thiebaut JB Polivka M Paintaud G Culine S Janin A Intrathecal Trastuzumab Halts Progression of CNS Metastases in Breast Cancer J Clin Oncol 2016 34 e151 5 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.8894 25547506

67 Hitchins RN Bell DR Woods RL Levi JA A prospective randomized trial of single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in meningeal carcinomatosis J Clin Oncol 1987 5 1655 62 10.1200/JCO.1987.5.10.1655 3309199

68 Zoghi B Elledge R Endocrine Therapy for Leptomeningeal Metastases from ER-Positive Breast Cancer: Case Report and a Review of the Literature. Breast J 2016 22 218 23 10.1111/tbj.12554 26748605

69 Siegal T Leptomeningeal metastases: rationale for systemic chemotherapy or what is the role of intra-CSF-chemotherapy? J Neurooncol 1998 38 151 7 9696366 10.1023/a:1005999228846

70 Grant R Naylor B Greenberg HS Junck L Clinical outcome in aggressively treated meningeal carcinomatosis Arch Neurol 1994 51 457 61 8179494 10.1001/archneur.1994.00540170033013

71 Glantz MJ Cole BF Recht L Akerley W Mills P Saris S Hochberg F Calabresi P Egorin MJ High-dose intravenous methotrexate for patients with nonleukemic leptomeningeal cancer: is intrathecal chemotherapy necessary? J Clin Oncol 1998 16 1561 7 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.4.1561 9552066

72 Hess JA Khasawneh MK Cancer metabolism and oxidative stress: Insights into carcinogenesis and chemotherapy via the non-dihydrofolate reductase effects of methotrexate BBA Clin 2015 3 152 61 10.1016/j.bbacli.2015.01.006 26674389 PMC4661551

73 Cole PD Kamen BA Gorlick R Banerjee D Smith AK Magill E Bertino JR Effects of overexpression of gamma-Glutamyl hydrolase on methotrexate metabolism and resistance Cancer Res 2001 61 4599 604 11389096

74 Liu DJ Fu XL Liu W Zheng LY Zhang JF Huo YM Li J Hua R Liu Q Sun YW Clinicopathological, treatment, and prognosis study of 43 gastric neuroendocrine carcinomas World J Gastroenterol 2017 23 516 24 10.3748/wjg.v23.i3.516 28210088 PMC5291857

75 McQuade RM Stojanovska V Bornstein JC Nurgali K Colorectal Cancer Chemotherapy: The Evolution of Treatment and New Approaches Curr Med Chem 2017 24 1537 1557 10.2174/0929867324666170111152436 28079003

76 Aitelhaj M Lkhoyaali S Rais G Boutayeb S Errihani H First line chemotherapy plus trastuzumab in metastatic breast cancer HER2 positive - Observational institutional study Pan Afr Med J 2016 24 324 10.11604/pamj.2016.24.324.4058 28154679 PMC5267845

77 Ekenel M Hormigo AM Peak S Deangelis LM Abrey LE Capecitabine therapy of central nervous system metastases from breast cancer J Neurooncol 2007 85 223 7 10.1007/s11060-007-9409-0 17611719

78 Giglio P Tremont-Lukats IW Groves MD Response of neoplastic meningitis from solid tumors to oral capecitabine J Neurooncol 2003 65 167 72 14686737 10.1023/b:neon.0000003752.89814.ca

79 Tham YL Hinckley L Teh BS Elledge R Long-term clinical response in leptomeningeal metastases from breast cancer treated with capecitabine monotherapy: a case report Clin Breast Cancer 2006 7 164 6 10.3816/CBC.2006.n.028 16800978

80 Stupp R Mason WP van den Bent MJ Weller M Fisher B Taphoorn MJ Belanger K Brandes AA Marosi C Bogdahn U Curschmann J Janzer RC Ludwin SK Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma N Engl J Med 2005 352 987 96 10.1056/NEJMoa043330 15758009

81 Stupp R Taillibert S Kanner AA Kesari S Steinberg DM Toms SA Taylor LP Lieberman F Silvani A Fink KL Barnett GH Zhu JJ Henson JW Maintenance Therapy With Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Temozolomide vs Temozolomide Alone for Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA 2015 314 2535 43 10.1001/jama.2015.16669 26670971

82 Broniscer A Chintagumpala M Fouladi M Krasin MJ Kocak M Bowers DC Iacono LC Merchant TE Stewart CF Houghton PJ Kun LE Ledet D Gajjar A Temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed high-grade glioma and unfavorable low-grade glioma in children J Neurooncol 2006 76 313 9 10.1007/s11060-005-7409-5 16200343

83 Hansen N Wittig A Hense J Kastrup O Gizewski ER Van de Nes JA Long survival of primary diffuse leptomeningeal gliomatosis following radiotherapy and temozolomide: case report and literature review Eur J Med Res 2011 16 415 9 22024443 10.1186/2047-783X-16-9-415 PMC3352148

84 Reddy K Gaspar LE Kavanagh BD Chen C Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with temozolomide chemotherapy may alter the patterns of failure in patients with glioblastoma multiforme J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2014 58 714 21 10.1111/1754-9485.12185 24975917

85 Bhatia R Roncaroli F Thomas P Cheah SL Mehta A Glaser M Ulbricht C A case of primary leptomeningeal gliomatosis confined to the spinal cord J Neurooncol 2010 98 125 9 10.1007/s11060-009-0050-y 19898776

86 Okita Y Nonaka M Umehara T Kanemura Y Kodama Y Mano M Nakajima S Efficacy of temozolomide and bevacizumab for the treatment of leptomeningeal dissemination of recurrent glioblastoma: A case report Oncol Lett 2015 9 1885 8 10.3892/ol.2015.2940 25789061 PMC4356381

87 Thomson N Pacak K Schmidt MH Palmer CA Salzman KL Champine M Schiffman JD Cohen AL Leptomeningeal dissemination of a low-grade lumbar paraganglioma: case report J Neurosurg Spine 2017 1 6 10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16948 PMC5378641 28128698

88 Lombardi G Zustovich F Della Puppa A Borgato L Orvieto E Manara R Cecchin D Berti F Farina P Gardiman MP Scienza R Zagonel V Cisplatin and temozolomide combination in the treatment of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis from ethmoid sinus intestinal-type adenocarcinoma J Neurooncol 2011 104 381 6 10.1007/s11060-010-0484-2 21140282

89 Lukas RV Mata-Machado NA Nicholas MK Salgia R Antic T Villaflor VM Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in esophageal cancer: a case series and systematic review of the literature Dis Esophagus 2015 28 772 81 10.1111/dote.12276 25142531

90 Ku GY Krol G Ilson DH Successful treatment of leptomeningeal disease in colorectal cancer with a regimen of bevacizumab, temozolomide, and irinotecan J Clin Oncol 2007 25 e14 6 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3317 17470852

91 Zauderer M Krug LM Pietanza MC O'Rourke D Leptomeningeal metastases from small cell lung cancer responsive to temozolomide therapy J Thorac Oncol 2010 5 1716 7 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f1cc32 20871272

92 Subbiah V Wolff JE Rapid response to therapy of neurocutaneous melanosis with leptomeningeal melanoma Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010 54 180 1 10.1002/pbc.22279 19722276

93 Hottinger AF Favet L Pache JC Martin JB Dietrich PY Delayed but Complete Response following Oral Temozolomide Treatment in Melanoma Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis Case Rep Oncol 2011 4 211 5 10.1159/000327699 21516271 PMC3080787

94 Raizer JJ Hwu WJ Panageas KS Wilton A Baldwin DE Bailey E von Althann C Lamb LA Alvarado G Bilsky MH Gutin PH Brain and leptomeningeal metastases from cutaneous melanoma: survival outcomes based on clinical features Neuro Oncol 2008 10 199 207 10.1215/15228517-2007-058 18287337 PMC2613822

95 Segura PP Gil M Balana C Chacon I Langa JM Martin M Bruna J Phase II trial of temozolomide for leptomeningeal metastases in patients with solid tumors J Neurooncol 2012 109 137 42 10.1007/s11060-012-0879-3 22610937

96 Kumthekar P Grimm SA Avram MJ Kaklamani V Helenowski I Rademaker A Cianfrocca M Gradishar W Patel J Mulcahy M McCarthy K Raizer JJ Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of pemetrexed in patients with brain or leptomeningeal metastases J Neurooncol 2013 112 247 55 10.1007/s11060-013-1055-0 23354655

97 Niyikiza C Baker SD Seitz DE Walling JM Nelson K Rusthoven JJ Stabler SP Paoletti P Calvert AH Allen RH Homocysteine and methylmalonic acid: markers to predict and avoid toxicity from pemetrexed therapy Mol Cancer Ther 2002 1 545 52 12479273

98 Sun JM Nam MH Chung JY Im B Lee SY Suh YL Ahn JS Park K Ahn MJ Safety and pharmacokinetics of intrathecal administration of pemetrexed in rats Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2011 68 531 8 10.1007/s00280-010-1522-7 21107572

99 Reijneveld JC Brandsma D Boogerd W Bonfrer JG Kalmijn S Voest EE Geurts-Moespot A Visser MC Taphoorn MJ CSF levels of angiogenesis-related proteins in patients with leptomeningeal metastases Neurology 2005 65 1120 2 10.1212/01.wnl.0000178981.39984.c2 16217072

100 Herrlinger U Wiendl H Renninger M Forschler H Dichgans J Weller M Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in leptomeningeal metastasis: diagnostic and prognostic value Br J Cancer 2004 91 219 24 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601953 15213721 PMC2409812

101 Wu PF Lin CH Kuo CH Chen WW Yeh DC Liao HW Huang SM Cheng AL Lu YS A pilot study of bevacizumab combined with etoposide and cisplatin in breast cancer patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis BMC Cancer 2015 15 299 10.1186/s12885-015-1290-1 25928457 PMC4403836

102 Chen IC Lin CH Jan IS Cheng AL Lu YS Bevacizumab might potentiate the chemotherapeutic effect in breast cancer patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis J Formos Med Assoc 2016 115 243 8 10.1016/j.jfma.2015.03.005 25890495

103 Sandler A Gray R Perry MC Brahmer J Schiller JH Dowlati A Lilenbaum R Johnson DH Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2006 355 2542 50 10.1056/NEJMoa061884 17167137

104 Ariyasu R Horiike A Koyama J Saiki M Sonoda T Kawashima Y Takano N Oguri T Nishikawa S Kitazono S Yanagitani N Ohyanagi F Nishio M Efficacy of bevacizumab and erlotinib combination for leptomeningeal carcinomatosis after failure of erlotinib Anticancer Drugs 2017 28 565 567 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000489 28225456

105 Socinski MA Langer CJ Huang JE Kolb MM Compton P Wang L Akerley W Safety of bevacizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and brain metastases J Clin Oncol 2009 27 5255 61 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.0616 19738122

106 Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK Damek DM The imaging and neuropathological effects of Bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis J Neurooncol 2010 96 375 84 10.1007/s11060-009-9969-2 19609489

107 Mathews MS Linskey ME Hasso AN Fruehauf JP The effect of bevacizumab (Avastin) on neuroimaging of brain metastases Surg Neurol 2008 70 649 52 discussion 53 10.1016/j.surneu.2007.06.029 18261776

108 Maemondo M Inoue A Kobayashi K Sugawara S Oizumi S Isobe H Gemma A Harada M Yoshizawa H Kinoshita I Fujita Y Okinaga S Hirano H Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR N Engl J Med 2010 362 2380 8 10.1056/NEJMoa0909530 20573926

109 Thomas A Rajan A Giaccone G Tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2012 26 589 605 viii 10.1016/j.hoc.2012.02.001 22520981 PMC3334853

110 Liao BC Lee JH Lin CC Chen YF Chang CH Ho CC Shih JY Yu CJ Yang JC Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients with Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis J Thorac Oncol 2015 10 1754 61 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000669 26334749

111 Lee E Keam B Kim DW Kim TM Lee SH Chung DH Heo DS Erlotinib versus gefitinib for control of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in non-small-cell lung cancer J Thorac Oncol 2013 8 1069 74 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318294c8e8 23804027

112 Yi HG Kim HJ Kim YJ Han SW Oh DY Lee SH Kim DW Im SA Kim TY Kim CS Heo DS Bang YJ Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are effective for leptomeningeal metastasis from non-small cell lung cancer patients with sensitive EGFR mutation or other predictive factors of good response for EGFR TKI Lung Cancer 2009 65 80 4 10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.10.016 19059670

113 Togashi Y Masago K Masuda S Mizuno T Fukudo M Ikemi Y Sakamori Y Nagai H Kim YH Katsura T Mishima M Cerebrospinal fluid concentration of gefitinib and erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2012 70 399 405 10.1007/s00280-012-1929-4 22806307

114 Jackman DM Cioffredi LA Jacobs L Sharmeen F Morse LK Lucca J Plotkin SR Marcoux PJ Rabin MS Lynch TJ Johnson BE Kesari S A phase I trial of high dose gefitinib for patients with leptomeningeal metastases from non-small cell lung cancer Oncotarget 2015 6 4527 36 10.18632/oncotarget.2886 25784657 PMC4414209

115 Kawamura T Hata A Takeshita J Fujita S Hayashi M Tomii K Katakami N High-dose erlotinib for refractory leptomeningeal metastases after failure of standard-dose EGFR-TKIs Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015 75 1261 6 10.1007/s00280-015-2759-y 25921002

116 Hidalgo M Siu LL Nemunaitis J Rizzo J Hammond LA Takimoto C Eckhardt SG Tolcher A Britten CD Denis L Ferrante K Von Hoff DD Silberman S Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies J Clin Oncol 2001 19 3267 79 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.13.3267 11432895

117 How J Mann J Laczniak AN Baggstrom MQ Pulsatile Erlotinib in EGFR-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Leptomeningeal and Brain Metastases Review of the Literature. Clin Lung Cancer 2017 18 354 363 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.01.013 28245967

118 Hoffknecht P Tufman A Wehler T Pelzer T Wiewrodt R Schutz M Serke M Stohlmacher-Williams J Marten A Maria Huber R Dickgreber NJ Afatinib Compassionate Use Consortium. Efficacy of the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease J Thorac Oncol 2015 10 156 63 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000380 25247337 PMC4276567

119 Kawaguchi Y Hanaoka J Hayashi H Mizusaki N Iihara H Itoh Y Sugiyama T Clinical Efficacy of Afatinib Treatment for a Patient with Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis Chemotherapy 2016 62 147 50 10.1159/000454727 28030859

120 Nanjo S Ebi H Arai S Takeuchi S Yamada T Mochizuki S Okada Y Nakada M Murakami T Yano S High efficacy of third generation EGFR inhibitor AZD9291 in a leptomeningeal carcinomatosis model with EGFR-mutant lung cancer cells Oncotarget 2016 7 3847 56 10.18632/oncotarget.6758 26716903 PMC4826174

121 Yang Z Guo Q Wang Y Chen K Zhang L Cheng Z Xu Y Yin X Bai Y Rabbie S Kim DW Ahn MJ Yang JC AZD3759, a BBB-penetrating EGFR inhibitor for the treatment of EGFR mutant NSCLC with CNS metastases Sci Transl Med 2016 8 368ra172 10.1126/scitranslmed.aag0976 27928026

122 Kwak EL Bang YJ Camidge DR Shaw AT Solomon B Maki RG Ou SH Dezube BJ Janne PA Costa DB Varella-Garcia M Kim WH Lynch TJ Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2010 363 1693 703 10.1056/NEJMoa1006448 20979469 PMC3014291

123 Travis WD Brambilla E Noguchi M Nicholson AG Geisinger KR Yatabe Y Beer DG Powell CA Riely GJ Van Schil PE Garg K Austin JH Asamura H International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society International Multidisciplinary Classification of Lung Adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2011 6 244 85 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221 PMC4513953 21252716

124 Riess JW Nagpal S Neal JW Wakelee HA A patient with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer with development of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis while on targeted treatment with crizotinib J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013 11 389 94 23584342 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0054 PMC6329611

125 Costa DB Kobayashi S Pandya SS Yeo WL Shen Z Tan W Wilner KD CSF concentration of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor crizotinib J Clin Oncol 2011 29 e443 5 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1313 21422405

126 Arrondeau J Ammari S Besse B Soria JC LDK378 compassionate use for treating carcinomatous meningitis in an ALK translocated non-small-cell lung cancer J Thorac Oncol 2014 9 e62 3 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000174 25157781

127 Ou SH Sommers KR Azada MC Garon EB Alectinib induces a durable (> 15 months) complete response in an ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer patient who progressed on crizotinib with diffuse leptomeningeal carcinomatosis Oncologist 2015 20 224 6 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0309 25568147 PMC4319629

128 Seto T Kiura K Nishio M Nakagawa K Maemondo M Inoue A Hida T Yamamoto N Yoshioka H Harada M Ohe Y Nogami N Takeuchi K CH5424802 (RO5424802) for patients with ALK-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (AF-001JP study): a single-arm, open-label, phase 1-2 study Lancet Oncol 2013 14 590 8 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70142-6 23639470

129 Kim DW Mehra R Tan DS Felip E Chow LQ Camidge DR Vansteenkiste J Sharma S De Pas T Riely GJ Solomon BJ Wolf J Thomas M Activity and safety of ceritinib in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-1): updated results from the multicentre, open-label, phase 1 trial Lancet Oncol 2016 17 452 63 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00614-2 26973324 PMC5063047

130 Crino L Ahn MJ De Marinis F Groen HJ Wakelee H Hida T Mok T Spigel D Felip E Nishio M Scagliotti G Branle F Emeremni C Multicenter Phase II Study of Whole-Body and Intracranial Activity With Ceritinib in Patients With ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy and Crizotinib: Results From ASCEND-2 J Clin Oncol 2016 34 2866 73 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.5936 27432917

131 Facchinetti F Tiseo M Di Maio M Graziano P Bria E Rossi G Novello S Tackling ALK in non-small cell lung cancer: the role of novel inhibitors Transl Lung Cancer Res 2016 5 301 21 10.21037/tlcr.2016.06.10 27413712 PMC4931127

132 Le XF Pruefer F Bast RC Jr. HER2-targeting antibodies modulate the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27Kip1 via multiple signaling pathways Cell Cycle 2005 4 87 95 10.4161/cc.4.1.1360 15611642

133 Kordbacheh T Law WY Smith IE Sanctuary site leptomeningeal metastases in HER-2 positive breast cancer: A review in the era of trastuzumab Breast 2016 26 54 8 10.1016/j.breast.2015.11.005 27017242

134 Morikawa A Jordan L Rozner R Patil S Boire A Pentsova E Seidman AD Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Breast Cancer With Leptomeningeal Metastasis Clin Breast Cancer 2017 17 23 8 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.07.002 27569275 PMC5266701

135 Stemmler HJ Schmitt M Willems A Bernhard H Harbeck N Heinemann V Ratio of trastuzumab levels in serum and cerebrospinal fluid is altered in HER2-positive breast cancer patients with brain metastases and impairment of blood-brain barrier Anticancer Drugs 2007 18 23 8 10.1097/01.cad.0000236313.50833.ee 17159499

136 Zagouri F Sergentanis TN Bartsch R Berghoff AS Chrysikos D de Azambuja E Dimopoulos MA Preusser M Intrathecal administration of trastuzumab for the treatment of meningeal carcinomatosis in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and pooled analysis Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013 139 13 22 10.1007/s10549-013-2525-y 23588955

137 Raizer J Pentsova E Omuro A Lin N Nayak L Quant E Kumthekar P Phase I Trial of Intrathecal Trastuzumab in Her2 Positive Leptomeningeal Metastases Neuro-Oncology 2014 16 v19 v 10.1093/neuonc/nou237.46

138 Sahebjam S Forsyth PA Smalley KS Tran ND Experimental Treatments for Leptomeningeal Metastases From Solid Malignancies Cancer Control 2017 24 42 6 28178711 10.1177/107327481702400106

139 Bot I Blank CU Brandsma D Clinical and radiological response of leptomeningeal melanoma after whole brain radiotherapy and ipilimumab J Neurol 2012 259 1976 8 10.1007/s00415-012-6488-4 22527228

140 Ali S Lee SK Ipilimumab Therapy for Melanoma: A Mimic of Leptomeningeal Metastases AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015 36 E69 70 10.3174/ajnr.A4581 26427830 PMC7964270

141 Gion M Remon J Caramella C Soria JC Besse B Symptomatic leptomeningeal metastasis improvement with nivolumab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patient Lung Cancer 2017 108 72 4 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.02.022 28625652

142 Glitza IC Rohlfs M Bassett R John I Richard J Iqbal M Bernzen T Gerber D Lacey C Diab A IMCT-07 Therapeutic outcomes of intrathecal interleukin-2 in metastatic melanoma patients with leptomeningeal disease (LMD) Neuro-oncology 2015 17 v108 v

143 Harstad L Hess KR Groves MD Prognostic factors and outcomes in patients with leptomeningeal melanomatosis Neuro Oncol 2008 10 1010 8 10.1215/15228517-2008-062 18708343 PMC2718998

144 Glitza IC Haymaker C Bernatchez C Vence L Rohlfs M Richard J Lacey C Mansaray R Fulbright OJ Ramachandran R Toth C Wardell S Patel SP Intrathecal Administration of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes Is Well Tolerated in a Patient with Leptomeningeal Disease from Metastatic Melanoma: A Case Report Cancer Immunol Res 2015 3 1201 6 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-15-0071 26216417 PMC4861225

145 Pentsova EI Shah RH Tang J Boire A You D Briggs S Omuro A Lin X Fleisher M Grommes C Panageas KS Meng F Selcuklu SD Evaluating Cancer of the Central Nervous System Through Next-Generation Sequencing of Cerebrospinal Fluid J Clin Oncol 2016 34 2404 15 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.6487 27161972 PMC4981784

146 Zhao J Ye X Xu Y Chen M Zhong W Sun Y Yang Z Zhu G Gu Y Wang M EGFR mutation status of paired cerebrospinal fluid and plasma samples in EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2016 78 1305 10 10.1007/s00280-016-3155-y 27770237

147 Teplyuk NM Mollenhauer B Gabriely G Giese A Kim E Smolsky M Kim RY Saria MG Pastorino S Kesari S Krichevsky AM MicroRNAs in cerebrospinal fluid identify glioblastoma and metastatic brain cancers and reflect disease activity Neuro Oncol 2012 14 689 700 10.1093/neuonc/nos074 22492962 PMC3367845

148 Rompp A Dekker L Taban I Jenster G Boogerd W Bonfrer H Spengler B Heeren R Smitt PS Luider TM Identification of leptomeningeal metastasis-related proteins in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with breast cancer by a combination of MALDI-TOF, MALDI-FTICR and nanoLC-FTICR MS. Proteomics 2007 7 474 81 10.1002/pmic.200600719 17274072

149 Patel AS Allen JE Dicker DT Peters KL Sheehan JM Glantz MJ El-Deiry WS Identification and enumeration of circulating tumor cells in the cerebrospinal fluid of breast cancer patients with central nervous system metastases Oncotarget 2011 2 752 60 10.18632/oncotarget.336 21987585 PMC3248154