Paul W. Sperduto

Summary Report on the Graded Prognostic Assessment: An Accurate and Facile Diagnosis-Specific Tool to Estimate Survival for Patients With Brain Metastases

PURPOSE Our group has previously published the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA), a prognostic index for patients with brain metastases. Updates have been published with refinements to create diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment indices. The purpose of this report is to present the updated diagnosis-specific GPA indices in a single, unified, user-friendly report to allow ease of access and use by treating physicians. METHODS A multi-institutional retrospective (1985 to 2007) database of 3,940 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors associated with outcomes by primary site and treatment. Significant prognostic factors were used to define the diagnosis-specific GPA prognostic indices. A GPA of 4.0 correlates with the best prognosis, whereas a GPA of 0.0 corresponds with the worst prognosis. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis. For lung cancer, prognostic factors were Karnofsky performance score, age, presence of extracranial metastases, and number of brain metastases, confirming the original Lung-GPA. For melanoma and renal cell cancer, prognostic factors were Karnofsky performance score and the number of brain metastases. For breast cancer, prognostic factors were tumor subtype, Karnofsky performance score, and age. For GI cancer, the only prognostic factor was the Karnofsky performance score. The median survival times by GPA score and diagnosis were determined. CONCLUSION Prognostic factors for patients with brain metastases vary by diagnosis, and for each diagnosis, a robust separation into different GPA scores was discerned, implying considerable heterogeneity in outcome, even within a single tumor type. In summary, these indices and related worksheet provide an accurate and facile diagnosis-specific tool to estimate survival, potentially select appropriate treatment, and stratify clinical trials for patients with brain metastases.

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

PURPOSE 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]). METHODS AND MATERIALS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSION 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.

A multi-institutional review of radiosurgery alone vs. radiosurgery with whole brain radiotherapy as the initial management of brain metastases

PURPOSE Data collected from 10 institutions were reviewed to compare survival probabilities of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases managed initially with radiosurgery (RS) alone vs. RS + whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS A database was created from raw data submitted from 10 institutions on patients treated with RS for brain metastases. The major exclusion criteria were resection of a brain metastasis and interval from the end of WBRT until RS >1 month (to try to ensure that the up-front intent was to combine RS + WBRT and that RS was not given for recurrent brain metastases). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method from the date of first treatment for brain metastases until death or last follow-up. Survival times were compared for patients managed initially with RS alone vs. RS + WBRT using the Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for known prognostic factors or Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class. RESULTS Out of 983 patients, 31 were excluded because treatment began after 6/1/98; 159 were excluded because brain metastases were resected; 179 were excluded because there was an interval >1 month from WBRT until RS; and 45 were excluded for other reasons. Of the 569 evaluable patients, 268 had RS alone initially (24% of whom ultimately had salvage WBRT), and 301 had RS + up-front WBRT. The median survival times for patients treated with RS alone initially vs. RS + WBRT were 14.0 vs. 15.2 months for RPA Class 1 patients, 8.2 vs. 7.0 months for Class 2, and 5.3 vs. 5.5 months for Class 3, respectively. With adjustment by RPA class, there was no survival difference comparing RS alone initially to RS + up-front WBRT (p = 0.33, hazard ratio = 1.09). CONCLUSIONS Omission of up-front WBRT does not seem to compromise length of survival in patients treated with RS for newly diagnosed brain metastases.

Neuropsychological effects of cranial radiation: current knowledge and future directions

Radiation is an invaluable therapeutic tool in the treatment of cancer, with well-established palliative and curative efficacy. As patient survival has improved, attention has focused on long-range treatment side effects. One such adverse effect, neuropsychological impairment, is incompletely understood. Much of the extant research has been directed at childhood leukemia survivors treated with low-dose whole-brain radiation. Less is known about the effects of high-dose focal or whole-brain radiation used in the treatment of brain lesions. This article reviews the scientific literature in this area, with greatest emphasis on methodologically rigorous studies. Research design considerations are discussed. Review findings suggest that low-dose whole-brain radiation (18 to 24 Gy) in children is associated with mild delayed IQ decline, with more substantial deficits occurring in children treated at a young age. A high incidence of learning disabilities and academic failure is observed in this population and may be caused by poor attention and memory rather than low intellectual level. Children who receive higher dose radiation for treatment of brain tumors experience more pronounced cognitive decline. At higher doses, whole-brain radiation, in particular, is linked to deleterious cognitive outcomes. Remarkably little is known about cognitive outcomes in irradiated adults. Preliminary findings indicate that certain cognitive functions, including memory, may be more vulnerable to decline than others. Suggestions for future research are proposed.

Radiotherapeutic and surgical management for newly diagnosed brain metastasis(es): An American Society for Radiation Oncology evidence-based guideline

Purpose To systematically review the evidence for the radiotherapeutic and surgical management of patients newly diagnosed with intraparenchymal brain metastases. Methods and Materials Key clinical questions to be addressed in this evidence-based Guideline were identified. Fully published randomized controlled trials dealing with the management of newly diagnosed intraparenchymal brain metastases were searched systematically and reviewed. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force levels of evidence were used to classify various options of management. Results The choice of management in patients with newly diagnosed single or multiple brain metastases depends on estimated prognosis and the aims of treatment (survival, local treated lesion control, distant brain control, neurocognitive preservation). Single brain metastasis and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For a single brain metastasis larger than 3 to 4 cm and amenable to safe complete resection, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and surgery (level 1) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery/radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single metastasis less than 3 to 4 cm, radiosurgery alone or WBRT and radiosurgery or WBRT and surgery (all based on level 1 evidence) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery or radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single brain metastasis (less than 3 to 4 cm) that is not resectable or incompletely resected, WBRT and radiosurgery, or radiosurgery alone should be considered (level 1). For nonresectable single brain metastasis (larger than 3 to 4 cm), WBRT should be considered (level 3). Multiple brain metastases and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For selected patients with multiple brain metastases (all less than 3 to 4 cm), radiosurgery alone, WBRT and radiosurgery, or WBRT alone should be considered, based on level 1 evidence. Safe resection of a brain metastasis or metastases causing significant mass effect and postoperative WBRT may also be considered (level 3). Patients with poor prognosis (expected survival less than 3 months): Patients with either single or multiple brain metastases with poor prognosis should be considered for palliative care with or without WBRT (level 3). It should be recognized, however, that there are limitations in the ability of physicians to accurately predict patient survival. Prognostic systems such as recursive partitioning analysis, and diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment may be helpful. Conclusions Radiotherapeutic intervention (WBRT or radiosurgery) is associated with improved brain control. In selected patients with single brain metastasis, radiosurgery or surgery has been found to improve survival and locally treated metastasis control (compared with WBRT alone).

RADIOSURGERY FOR PATIENTS WITH BRAIN METASTASES: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, STRATIFIED BY THE RTOG RECURSIVE PARTITIONING ANALYSIS METHOD

PURPOSE To estimate the potential improvement in survival for patients with brain metastases, stratified by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class and treated with radiosurgery (RS) plus whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS An analysis of the RS databases of 10 institutions identified patients with brain metastates treated with RS and WBRT. Patients were stratified into 1 of 3 RPA classes. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and proportional hazard regression analysis. A comparison of survival by class was carried out with the RTOG results in similar patients receiving WBRT alone. RESULTS Five hundred two patients were eligible (261 men and 241 women, median age 59 years, range 26-83). The overall median survival was 10.7 months. A higher Karnofsky performance status (p = 0.0001), a controlled primary (median survival = 11.6 vs. 8.8 months, p = 0.0023), absence of extracranial metastases (median survival 13.4 vs. 9.1 months, p = 0.0001), and lower RPA class (median survival 16.1 months for class I vs. 10.3 months for class II vs. 8.7 months for class III, p = 0.000007) predicted for improved survival. Gender, age, primary site, radiosurgery technique, and institution were not prognostic. The addition of RS boosted results in median survival (16.1, 10.3, and 8.7 months for classes I, II, and III, respectively) compared with the median survival (7.1, 4.2, and 2.3 months, p <0.05) observed in the RTOG RPA analysis for patients treated with WBRT alone. CONCLUSION In the absence of randomized data, these results suggest that RS may improve survival in patients with BM. The improvement in survival does not appear to be restricted by class for well-selected patients.

Effect of Tumor Subtype on Survival and the Graded Prognostic Assessment for Patients With Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases

PURPOSE The diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) was published to clarify prognosis for patients with brain metastases. This study refines the existing Breast-GPA by analyzing a larger cohort and tumor subtype. METHODS AND MATERIALS A multi-institutional retrospective database of 400 breast cancer patients treated for newly diagnosed brain metastases was generated. Prognostic factors significant for survival were analyzed by multivariate Cox regression and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). Factors were weighted by the magnitude of their regression coefficients to define the GPA index. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors by multivariate Cox regression and RPA were Karnofsky performance status (KPS), HER2, ER/PR status, and the interaction between ER/PR and HER2. RPA showed age was significant for patients with KPS 60 to 80. The median survival time (MST) overall was 13.8 months, and for GPA scores of 0 to 1.0, 1.5 to 2.0, 2.5 to 3.0, and 3.5 to 4.0 were 3.4 (n = 23), 7.7 (n = 104), 15.1 (n = 140), and 25.3 (n = 133) months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Among HER2-negative patients, being ER/PR positive improved MST from 6.4 to 9.7 months, whereas in HER2-positive patients, being ER/PR positive improved MST from 17.9 to 20.7 months. The log-rank statistic (predictive power) was 110 for the Breast-GPA vs. 55 for tumor subtype. CONCLUSIONS The Breast-GPA documents wide variation in prognosis and shows clear separation between subgroups of patients with breast cancer and brain metastases. This tool will aid clinical decision making and stratification in clinical trials. These data confirm the effect of tumor subtype on survival and show the Breast-GPA offers significantly more predictive power than the tumor subtype alone.

Stereotactic radiosurgery for recurrent malignant gliomas.

PURPOSE To evaluate the role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of recurrent malignant gliomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS We treated 35 patients with large (median treatment volume, 28 cm3) recurrent tumors that had failed to respond to conventional treatment. Twenty-six patients (74%) had glioblastomas multiforme (GBM) and nine (26%) had anaplastic astrocytomas (AA). RESULTS The mean time from diagnosis to radiosurgery was 10 months (range, 1 to 36), from radiosurgery to death, 8.0 months (range, 1 to 23). Twenty-one GBM (81%) and six AA (67%) patients have died. The actuarial survival time for all patients was 21 months from diagnosis and 8 months from radiosurgery. Twenty-two of 26 patients (85%) died of local or marginal failure, three (12%) of noncontiguous failure, and one (4%) of CSF dissemination. Age (P = .0405) was associated with improved survival on multivariate analysis, and age (P = .0110) and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (P = .0285) on univariate analysis. Histology, treatment volume, and treatment dose were not significant variables by univariate analysis. Seven patients required surgical resection for increasing mass effect a mean of 4.0 months after radiosurgery, for an actuarial reoperation rate of 31%. Surgery did not significantly influence survival. At surgery, four patients had recurrent tumor, two had radiation necrosis, and one had both tumor and necrosis. The actuarial necrosis rate was 14% and the pathologic findings could have been predicted by the integrated logistic formula for developing symptomatic brain injury. CONCLUSION Stereotactic radiosurgery appears to prolong survival for recurrent malignant gliomas and has a lower reoperative rate for symptomatic necrosis than does brachytherapy. Patterns of failure are similar for both of these techniques.

A Phase 3 Trial of Whole Brain Radiation Therapy and Stereotactic Radiosurgery Alone Versus WBRT and SRS With Temozolomide or Erlotinib for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and 1 to 3 Brain Metastases: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0320.

BACKGROUND A phase 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study subset analysis demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) with the addition of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases. Because temozolomide (TMZ) and erlotinib (ETN) cross the blood-brain barrier and have documented activity in NSCLC, a phase 3 study was designed to test whether these drugs would improve the OS associated with WBRT + SRS. METHODS AND MATERIALS NSCLC patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases were randomized to receive WBRT (2.5 Gy × 15 to 37.5 Gy) and SRS alone, versus WBRT + SRS + TMZ (75 mg/m(2)/day × 21 days) or ETN (150 mg/day). ETN (150 mg/day) or TMZ (150-200 mg/m(2)/day × 5 days/month) could be continued for as long as 6 months after WBRT + SRS. The primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS After 126 patients were enrolled, the study closed because of accrual limitations. The median survival times (MST) for WBRT + SRS, WBRT + SRS + TMZ, and WBRT + SRS + ETN were qualitatively different (13.4, 6.3, and 6.1 months, respectively), although the differences were not statistically significant. Time to central nervous system progression and performance status at 6 months were better in the WBRT + SRS arm. Grade 3 to 5 toxicity was 11%, 41%, and 49% in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P<.001). CONCLUSION The addition of TMZ or ETN to WBRT + SRS in NSCLC patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases did not improve survival and possibly had a deleterious effect. Because the analysis is underpowered, these data suggest but do not prove that increased toxicity was the cause of inferior survival in the drug arms.

A validation study of a new prognostic index for patients with brain metastases: the Graded Prognostic Assessment

OBJECT The purpose of this study was to validate a new prognostic index for patients with brain metastases. This index, the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA), is based on an analysis of 1960 patients whose data were extracted from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) database. The GPA is based on 4 criteria: age, Karnofsky Performance Scale score, number of brain metastases, and the presence/absence of extracranial metastases. Each of the 4 criteria is given a score of 0, 0.5, or 1.0, so the patient with best prognosis would have a GPA score of 4.0. METHODS Between April 2005 and December 2006, 140 eligible patients with brain metastases were treated at the Gamma Knife Center at the University of Minnesota. The GPA score was calculated for each patient, and the score was then correlated with survival. Survival duration was calculated from the date treatment began for the brain metastases. Eligibility criteria included patients treated with whole-brain radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, or both. RESULTS The median survival time in months observed in the RTOG and Minnesota data by GPA score was as follows: GPA 3.5-4.0, 11.0 and 21.7; GPA 3.0, 8.9 and 17.5; GPA 1.5-2.5, 3.8 and 5.9; and GPA 0-1.0, 2.6 and 3.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The University of Minnesota data correlate well with the RTOG data and validate the use of the GPA as an effective prognostic index for patients with brain metastases. Clearly, not all patients with brain metastases have the same prognosis, and treatment decisions should be individualized accordingly. The GPA score does appear to be as prognostic as the RPA and is less subjective (because the RPA requires assessment of whether the primary disease is controlled), more quantitative, and easier to use and remember. A multi-institutional validation study of the GPA is ongoing.