Estimating survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers and brain metastases: An update of the graded prognostic assessment for gastrointestinal cancers (GI-GPA).

BackgroundPatients with gastrointestinal cancers and brain metastases (BM) represent a unique and heterogeneous population. Our group previously published the Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA) for patients with GI cancers (GI-GPA) (1985-2007, n = 209). The purpose of this study is to update the GI-GPA based on a larger contemporary database.MethodsAn IRB-approved consortium database analysis was performed using a multi-institutional (18), multi-national (3) cohort of 792 patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, with newly-diagnosed BM diagnosed between 1/1/2006 and 12/31/2017. Survival was measured from date of first treatment for BM. Multiple Cox regression was used to select and weight prognostic factors in proportion to their hazard ratios. These factors were incorporated into the updated GI-GPA.ResultsMedian survival (MS) varied widely by primary site and other prognostic factors. Four significant factors (KPS, age, extracranial metastases and number of BM) were used to formulate the updated GI-GPA. Overall MS for this cohort remains poor; 8 months. MS by GPA was 3, 7, 11 and 17 months for GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, 2.5-3.0 and 3.5-4.0, respectively. >30% present in the worst prognostic group (GI-GPA of ≤1.0).ConclusionsBrain metastases are not uncommon in GI cancer patients and MS varies widely among them. This updated GI-GPA index improves our ability to estimate survival for these patients and will be useful for therapy selection, end-of-life decision-making and stratification for future clinical trials. A user-friendly, free, on-line app to calculate the GPA score and estimate survival for an individual patient is available at brainmetgpa.com

Intraoperative radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer: a single-institution experience

Background: To assess outcomes and toxicity after low-energy intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC).  Materials and methods: We reviewed patients with unilateral ESBC treated with breast-conserving surgery and 50-kV IORT at our institution. Patients were prescribed 20 Gy to the surface of the spherical applicator, fitted to the surgical cavity during surgery. Patients who did not meet institutional guidelines for IORT alone on final pathology were recommended adjuvant treatment, including additional surgery and/or external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). We analyzed ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, overall survival, recurrence-free survival and toxicity. Results: Among 201 patients (median follow-up, 5.1 years; median age, 67 years), 88% were Her2 negative and ER positive and/or PR positive, 98% had invasive ductal carcinoma, 87% had grade 1 or 2, and 95% had clinical T1 disease. Most had pathological stage T1 (93%) N0 (95%) disease. Mean IORT applicator dose at 1-cm depth was 6.3 Gy. Post-IORT treatment included additional surgery, 10%; EBRT, 11%; adjuvant chemotherapy, 9%; and adjuvant hormonal therapy, 74%. Median total EBRT dose was 42.4 (range, 40.05-63) Gy and median dose per fraction was 2.65 Gy. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence was 2.7%, the overall survival rate was 95% with no breast cancer-related deaths, and the recurrence-free survival rate was 96%. For patients who were deemed unsuitable for postoperative IORT alone and did not receive recommended risk-adapted EBRT, the IBTR rate was 4.7% versus 1.7% (p = 0.23) for patients who were either suitable for IORT alone or unsuitable and received adjuvant EBRT. Cosmetic toxicity data was available for 83%, with 7% experiencing grade 3 breast toxicity and no grade 4–5 toxicity. Conclusions: IORT for select patients with ESBC results in acceptable outcomes in regard to ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and toxicity

Dose-Effect Analysis of Early Changes in Orbital Bone Morphology After Radiation Therapy for Rhabdomyosarcoma

Purpose: In survivors of orbital embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma (ERMS), late effects include facial deformation and asymmetry. We sought to quantify orbital asymmetry in ERMS survivors and characterize the dose effect of radiation to the orbital bones. Methods and Materials: We evaluated the most recent follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 17 children (≤21 years old) with stage 1 group III orbital ERMS treated with proton therapy between 2007 and 2018. For all patients, the orbital socket volumes were calculated and compared with the contralateral, unirradiated orbital socket. Patient age, orbital tumor quadrant, and the radiation dose delivered to the major orbital bones (maxillary, frontal, and zygomatic bones) were recorded and correlated with the orbital socket volume difference. Results: The mean age at diagnosis was 5.4 years old (range, 1.1-9.7 years). All patients received a prescription dose of 45 GyRBE. The mean time interval between radiation and MRI was 2.9 years (range, 0.8-3.2 years). The mean age at most recent MRI was 8.4 years (range, 2.3-12.9 years). In 16 of 17 patients, the volume of the ipsilateral orbit was significantly smaller than the contralateral orbit on follow-up MRI (P ≤ .0001). In one patient with nonviable tumor in situ, the irradiated orbit was larger. The volume difference increased with follow-up time and did not correlate with age at treatment or age at MRI. A dose >40 GyRBE to all bones of the orbital rim was associated with a significant decrease in orbital volume (P 40 GyRBE to either the frontal, maxillary, or zygomatic bone was not. Conclusions: Despite the dosimetric precision of proton therapy, orbital asymmetry will develop after >40 GyRBE to multiple bones of the orbital rim. These data may be used to guide treatment planning and counsel patients on expected cosmesis

PIK3CA mutation is associated with increased local failure in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)

Objectives: Hyperactivation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway has been associated with radioresistance. It is unclear whether such mutations confer suboptimal local control for patients who receive lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Our objective was to examine whether mutations in the EGFR/AKT/PIK3CA signaling pathway are associated with local failure (LF) after lung SBRT. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 166 patients who underwent SBRT to primary or metastatic lung lesions from 2007 to 2015 for whom genetic testing data was available for EGFR, AKT, and PIK3CA genes. Association between clinical factors, including molecular mutation status, and LF was evaluated. Results: Six patients (4%) had PIK3CA mutation, 36 patients (22%) had EGFR mutation, and one patient (0.6%) had AKT1 mutation. Median lesion size was 2.0â¯cm (range, 0.6â5.6â¯cm); median dose was 48â¯Gy in 4 fractions (range, 30â70â¯Gy in 3â10 fractions). Median follow-up for survivors was 27.3â¯months (range, 3.8â66.7â¯months). LF occurred in 16 patients (10%). On univariate analysis, PIK3CA mutation was associated with LF (HR 10.44 [95% CI 2.16â50.46], pâ¯=â¯.003), while tumor histology, tumor size, primary tumor site, BED and EGFR mutation were not. At one year, probability of LF in lesions with PIK3CA mutation was 20.0% vs. 2.9% in lesions without mutation (pâ¯<â¯.001 by log rank test). Conclusion: Although the number of patients affected was small, PIK3CA mutation was significantly associated with higher risk of LF in patients undergoing lung SBRT. This association has not previously been reported for lung SBRT and indicates the need for further validation. Keywords: Lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), PIK3CA, Radiation resistance, Local failur

Estimating Survival in Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases: An Update of the Graded Prognostic Assessment for Melanoma Using Molecular Markers (Melanoma-molGPA).

PurposeTo update the Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA) for a markedly heterogeneous patient population, patients with melanoma and brain metastases, using a larger, more current cohort, including molecular markers.MethodsThe original Melanoma-GPA is based on data from 483 patients whose conditions were diagnosed between 1985 and 2005. This is a multi-institutional retrospective database analysis of 823 melanoma patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015. Multivariable analyses identified significant prognostic factors, which were weighted and included in the updated index (Melanoma-molGPA). Multiple Cox regression was used to select and weight prognostic factors in proportion to their hazard ratios to design the updated Melanoma-molGPA in which scores of 4.0 and 0.0 are associated with the best and worst prognoses, as with all of the diagnosis-specific GPA indices. Log-rank tests were used to compare adjacent classes.ResultsThere were 5 significant prognostic factors for survival (age, Karnofsky performance status [KPS], extracranial metastases [ECM], number of brain metastases, and BRAF status), whereas only KPS and the number of brain metastases were significant in the original Melanoma-GPA. Median survival improved from 6.7 to 9.8&nbsp;months between the 2 treatment eras, and the median survival times for patients with Melanoma-molGPA of 0 to 1.0, 1.5 to 2.0, 2.5 to 3.0, and 3.5 to 4.0 were 4.9, 8.3, 15.8, and 34.1&nbsp;months (P&lt;.0001 between each adjacent group).ConclusionsSurvival and our ability to estimate survival in melanoma patients with brain metastases has improved significantly. The updated Melanoma-molGPA, a user-friendly tool to estimate survival, will facilitate clinical decision making regarding whether and which treatment is appropriate and will also be useful for stratification of future clinical&nbsp;trials. To further simplify use, a free online/smart phone app is available at brainmetgpa.com

The Prognostic Value of BRAF, C-KIT, and NRAS Mutations in Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases.

PurposeBrain metastases are a common problem in patients with melanoma, but little is known about the effect of gene mutations on survival in these patients.Methods and materialsWe created a retrospective multi-institutional database of 823 patients with melanoma and brain metastases diagnosed between 2006 and 2015. Clinical parameters, gene mutation status (BRAF, C-KIT, NRAS), and treatment were correlated with survival. Treatment patterns and outcomes were compared with a prior era (1985-2005).ResultsBRAF status was known in 584 of 823 patients (71%). BRAF, NRAS, and C-KIT mutations were present in 51%, 22%, and 11% of tested patients, respectively. The median time from primary diagnosis to brain metastasis was 32&nbsp;months, and overall median survival (MS) from the time of initial treatment of brain metastases was 10&nbsp;months. MS for BRAF-positive and BRAF-negative patients was 13&nbsp;months and 9&nbsp;months, respectively (P=.02). There was no significant difference in MS in patients with or without NRAS or C-KIT mutations. The time from primary diagnosis to brain metastasis did not vary by mutation and was not associated with survival after the diagnosis of brain metastases. MS for the 1985 to 2005 and 2006 to 2015 cohorts was 6.7&nbsp;months and 10.0&nbsp;months, respectively (P&lt;.01). Reflecting treatment-trend changes, use of whole-brain radiation therapy decreased from 48% to 26% during this period. Among BRAF-positive patients, 71% received targeted BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors and 57% received some combination of targeted therapy, chemotherapy, and/or immunotherapy.ConclusionsFor melanoma patients with brain metastases, BRAF-positive patients survive longer than BRAF-negative patients and overall survival has improved from 1985-2005 to 2006-2015

Effect of Targeted Therapies on Prognostic Factors, Patterns of Care, and Survival in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma and Brain Metastases

PurposeTo&nbsp;identify prognostic factors, define evolving patterns of care, and the effect of targeted therapies in a larger contemporary cohort of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with new brain metastases (BM).Methods and materialsA multi-institutional retrospective institutional review board-approved database of 711 RCC patients with new BM diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015, was created. Clinical parameters and treatment were correlated with median survival and time from primary diagnosis to BM. Multivariable analyses were performed.ResultsThe median survival for the prior/present cohorts was 9.6/12&nbsp;months, respectively (P&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;.01). Four prognostic factors (Karnofsky performance status, extracranial metastases, number of BM, and hemoglobin b) were significant for survival after the diagnosis of BM. Of the 6 drug types studied, only cytokine use after BM was associated with improved survival. The use of whole-brain radiation therapy declined from 50% to 22%, and the use of stereotactic radiosurgery alone increased from 46% to 58%. Nonneurologic causes of death were twice as common as neurologic causes.ConclusionsAdditional prognostic factors refine prognostication in this larger contemporary cohort. Patterns of care have changed, and survival of RCC patients with BM has improved over time. The reasons for this improvement in survival remain unknown but may relate to more aggressive use of local brain metastasis therapy and a wider array of systemic treatment options for those patients with progressive extracranial tumor

Estimating survival for renal cell carcinoma patients with brain metastases: an update of the Renal Graded Prognostic Assessment tool.

BackgroundBrain metastases are a common complication of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our group previously published the Renal Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) tool. In our prior RCC study (n = 286, 1985-2005), we found marked heterogeneity and variation in outcomes. In our recent update in a larger, more contemporary cohort, we identified additional significant prognostic factors. The purpose of this study is to update the original Renal-GPA based on the newly identified prognostic factors.MethodsA multi-institutional retrospective institutional review board-approved database of 711 RCC patients with new brain metastases diagnosed from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015 was created. Clinical parameters and treatment were correlated with survival. A revised Renal GPA index was designed by weighting the most significant factors in proportion to their hazard ratios and assigning scores such that the patients with the best and worst prognoses would have a GPA of 4.0 and 0.0, respectively.ResultsThe 4 most significant factors were Karnofsky performance status, number of brain metastases, extracranial metastases, and hemoglobin. The overall median survival was 12 months. Median survival for GPA groups 0-1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3, and 3.5-4.0 (% n = 25, 27, 30 and 17) was 4, 12, 17, and 35 months, respectively.ConclusionThe updated Renal GPA is a user-friendly tool that will help clinicians and patients better understand prognosis, individualize clinical decision making and treatment selection, provide a means to compare retrospective literature, and provide more robust stratification of future clinical trials in this heterogeneous population. To simplify use of this tool in daily practice, a free online application is available at brainmetgpa.com

Survival and prognostic factors in patients with gastrointestinal cancers and brain metastases: have we made progress?

The literature describing the prognosis of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers and brain metastases (BM) is sparse. Our group previously published a prognostic index, the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) for GI cancer patients with BM, based on 209 patients diagnosed from 1985-2005. The purpose of this analysis is to identify prognostic factors for GI cancer patients with newly diagnosed BM in a larger contemporary cohort. A multi-institutional retrospective IRB-approved database of 792 GI cancer patients with new BM diagnosed from 1/1/2006 to 12/31/2016 was created. Demographic data, clinical parameters, and treatment were correlated with survival and time from primary diagnosis to BM (TPDBM). Kaplan-Meier median survival (MS) estimates were calculated and compared with log-rank tests. The MS from time of first treatment for BM for the prior and current cohorts were 5 and 8 months, respectively (P &lt; 0.001). Eight prognostic factors (age, stage, primary site, resection of primary tumor, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), extracranial metastases, number of BM and Hgb were found to be significant for survival, in contrast to only one (KPS) in the prior cohort. In this cohort, the most common primary sites were rectum (24%) and esophagus (23%). Median TPDBM was 22 months. Notably, 37% (267/716) presented with poor prognosis (GPA 0-1.0). Although little improvement in overall survival in this cohort has been achieved in recent decades, survival varies widely and multiple new prognostic factors were identified. Future work will translate these factors into a prognostic index to facilitate clinical decision-making and stratification of future clinical trials