25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases: Summary Report on the Updated Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and Definition of the Eligibility Quotient

      1 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 4 , 4 , 5 , 5 , 6 , 6 , 7 , 7 , 8 , 8 , 9 , 9 , 10 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 11 , 12 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 14 , 15 , 15 , 16 , 16 , 17 , 17 , 18 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 17
      Journal of Clinical Oncology
      American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          PURPOSE

          Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility.

          METHODS

          A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively.

          RESULTS

          Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation ( P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non–small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively.

          CONCLUSION

          Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Combination nivolumab and ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in melanoma brain metastases: a multicentre randomised phase 2 study

          Nivolumab monotherapy and combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab increase proportions of patients achieving a response and survival versus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma; however, efficacy in active brain metastases is unknown. We aimed to establish the efficacy and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with active melanoma brain metastases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A new prognostic index and comparison to three other indices for patients with brain metastases: an analysis of 1,960 patients in the RTOG database.

            The purpose of this study is to introduce a new prognostic index for patients with brain metastases and compare it with three published indices. Treatment for brain metastases varies widely. A sound prognostic index is thus important to guide both clinical decision making and outcomes research. A new index was developed because of limitations in the three existing indices and new data (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9508) are available since the others were developed. All four indices were compared using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group database of 1,960 patients with brain metastases from five randomized trials. The ability of the four indices to distinguish its separate classes was determined statistically. Advantages and disadvantages of each index are discussed. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) and the new Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) had the most statistically significant differences between classes (p < 0.001 for all classes). The new index, the GPA, is as prognostic as the RPA and more prognostic than the other indices. The GPA is the least subjective, most quantitative and easiest to use of the four indices. Future clinical trials should compare the GPA with the RPA to prospectively validate these findings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnosis-specific prognostic factors, indexes, and treatment outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis of 4,259 patients.

              Controversy endures regarding the optimal treatment of patients with brain metastases (BMs). Debate persists, despite many randomized trials, perhaps because BM patients are a heterogeneous population. The purpose of the present study was to identify significant diagnosis-specific prognostic factors and indexes (Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment [DS-GPA]). A retrospective database of 5,067 patients treated for BMs between 1985 and 2007 was generated from 11 institutions. After exclusion of the patients with recurrent BMs or incomplete data, 4,259 patients with newly diagnosed BMs remained eligible for analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the prognostic factors and outcomes by primary site and treatment were performed. The significant prognostic factors were determined and used to define the DS-GPA prognostic indexes. The DS-GPA scores were calculated and correlated with the outcomes, stratified by diagnosis and treatment. The significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis. For non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer, the significant prognostic factors were Karnofsky performance status, age, presence of extracranial metastases, and number of BMs, confirming the original GPA for these diagnoses. For melanoma and renal cell cancer, the significant prognostic factors were Karnofsky performance status and the number of BMs. For breast and gastrointestinal cancer, the only significant prognostic factor was the Karnofsky performance status. Two new DS-GPA indexes were thus designed for breast/gastrointestinal cancer and melanoma/renal cell carcinoma. The median survival by GPA score, diagnosis, and treatment were determined. The prognostic factors for BM patients varied by diagnosis. The original GPA was confirmed for non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer. New DS-GPA indexes were determined for other histologic types and correlated with the outcome, and statistical separation between the groups was confirmed. These data should be considered in the design of future randomized trials and in clinical decision-making. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Clinical Oncology
                JCO
                American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
                0732-183X
                1527-7755
                September 15 2020
                : JCO.20.01255
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Minneapolis Radiation Oncology and University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, Minneapolis, MN
                [2 ]MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
                [3 ]Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
                [4 ]Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
                [5 ]University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
                [6 ]Duke University, Durham, NC
                [7 ]Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
                [8 ]Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
                [9 ]Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [10 ]University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
                [11 ]University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL
                [12 ]Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [13 ]University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
                [14 ]University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
                [15 ]University of Colorado, Denver, CO
                [16 ]Columbia University, New York, NY
                [17 ]Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL
                [18 ]Yale University, New Haven, CT
                [19 ]University of Niigata, Niigata, Japan
                [20 ]Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
                Article
                10.1200/JCO.20.01255
                32931399
                e98ad987-0fcf-4cc8-ae87-903664b7367e
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content86

                Cited by135

                Most referenced authors802