Financial toxicity in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy in Germany-a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity arises in cancer patients from subjective financial distress due to objective financial burden from the disease or treatment. Financial toxicity associates with worse outcomes. It has not been described in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in Germany and its publicly funded health system. In this context, we therefore investigated the prevalence of financial toxicity, associated risk factors, and patient preferences on communication of financial burden. METHODS: We conducted a preregistered ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KH6VX ) cross-sectional study surveying patients at the end of their course of radiotherapy in two institutions. Objective financial burden was assessed by direct costs and loss of income. Financial toxicity was measured by subjective financial distress per EORTC QLQ-C30. We used Spearman's correlation and Fisher's exact test for univariate analysis, an ordinal regression for multivariate analysis. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients participating in the study, 68% reported direct costs, 25% loss of income, and 31% subjective financial distress. Per univariate analysis, higher subjective financial distress was significantly associated with active employment, lower quality of life, lower household income, higher direct costs, and higher loss of income. The latter three factors remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. A relative majority of the patients welcomed communication regarding financial burden with their radiation oncologist. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is prevalent in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy in Germany. The reported risk factors may help to identify patients at risk. Future studies should validate these results and investigate interventions for financial toxicity to potentially improve outcomes.

Assessment of extracranial metastatic disease in patients with brain metastases: How much effort is needed in the context of evolving survival prediction models?

Survival prediction models may serve as decision-support tools for clinicians who have to assign the right treatment to each patient, in a manner whereby harmful over- or undertreatment is avoided as much as possible. Current models differ regarding their components, the overall number of components and the weighting of individual components. Some of the components are easy to assess, such as age or primary tumor type. Others carry the risk of inter-assessor inconsistency and time-dependent variation. The present publication focuses on issues related to assessment of extracranial metastases and potential surrogates, e.g. blood biomarkers. It identifies areas of controversy and provides recommendations for future research projects, which may contribute to prognostic models with improved accuracy.

Validation of the graded prognostic assessment for gastrointestinal cancers with brain metastases (GI-GPA).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate a new prognostic model (GI-GPA) originally derived from a multi-center database (USA, Canada, Japan). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 92 German and Norwegian patients treated with individualized approaches, always including brain radiotherapy. Information about age, extracranial spread, number of brain metastases, performance status and other variables was collected. The GI-GPA score was calculated as described by Sperduto et al. RESULTS: Median survival was 4 months. The corresponding figures for the 4 different prognostic strata were 2.3, 4.4, 9.4 and 12.7 months, respectively (p = 0.0001). Patients whose management included surgical resection had longer median survival than those who were treated with other approaches (median 11.9 versus 3.0 months, p = 0.002). Comparable results were seen for additional systemic therapy (median 8.5 versus 3.5 months, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: These results confirm the validity of the GI-GPA in an independent dataset from a different geographical region, despite the fact that overall survival was shorter in all prognostic strata, compared to Sperduto et al. Potential explanations include differences in molecular tumor characteristics and treatment selection, both brain metastases-directed and extracranially. Long-term survival beyond 5 years is possible in a small minority of patients.

Validation of the graded prognostic assessment for lung cancer with brain metastases using molecular markers (lung-molGPA).

BACKGROUND: Many patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer have limited survival, while others survive for several years, depending on patterns of spread, EGFR and ALK alterations, among others. The purpose of this study was to validate a new prognostic model (Lung-molGPA) originally derived from a North American database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 269 German and Norwegian patients treated with individualized approaches, always including brain radiotherapy. Information about age, extracranial spread, number of brain metastases, performance status, histology, EGFR and ALK alterations was collected. The Lung-molGPA score was calculated as described by Sperduto et al. RESULTS: Median survival was 5.4 months. The score predicted survival in patients with adenocarcinoma histology and those with other types. For example, median survival was 3.0, 6.2, 14.7 and 25.0 months in the 4 different prognostic strata for adenocarcinoma. The corresponding figures were 2.4, 5.5 and 12.5 months in the 3 different prognostic strata for non-adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the validity of the Lung-molGPA in an independent dataset from a different geographical region. However, median survival was shorter in 6 of 7 prognostic strata. Potential explanations include lead time bias and differences in treatment selection, both brain metastases-directed and systemically.

Diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment score is valid in patients with brain metastases treated in routine clinical practice in two European countries.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of cancer- and host-related prognostic factors has a long tradition in patients with brain metastases. In continuation of large-scale studies performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) in the United States, the 4-tiered diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (DS-GPA) score has been developed. It stratifies patients with common primary tumours metastasizing to the brain (malignant melanoma, lung, breast, kidney and gastrointestinal cancers) into subgroups with different prognoses. However, many patients in the DS-GPA study were treated with surgical resection or radiosurgery (SRS). The present multi-institutional analysis examined for the first time whether DS-GPA is a valid score in European patients managed in routine clinical practice. MATERIAL/METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 412 patients with primary malignant melanoma, lung, breast, kidney or gastrointestinal cancers. Survival was evaluated in uni- and multivariate tests. RESULTS: DS-GPA significantly predicted survival and outperformed initial GPA, a score that is not diagnosis-specific. Median survival by DS-GPA strata (all 412 patients) was 2.7, 3.6, 7.0 and 11.3 months in the 4 groups with 0-1, 1.5-2, 2.5-3 and 3.5-4 points, respectively. The previously published survival data (median 7.2 months for all patients) could not be replicated in this cohort (median 3.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: DS-GPA is a valid prognostic score that might improve shared decision making as well as patient stratification in prospective clinical trials.

Can current prognostic scores reliably guide treatment decisions in patients with brain metastases from malignant melanoma?

PURPOSE: We evaluated the performance of the new 4-tiered melanoma-specific graded prognostic assessment (GPA) score and the previously published general GPA score in patients with brain metastases from malignant melanoma managed with different approaches including best supportive care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 51 patients. Compared with the original analysis of the melanoma-specific GPA score, these patients were more representative of the general population of patients with brain metastases from this disease. RESULTS: The present data confirmed that both scores identify patients with favorable prognosis who might be candidates for focal treatments. However, survival in the 2 unfavorable prognostic subgroups defined by the melanoma-specific GPA was not significantly different. Median survival in the melanoma-specific GPA classes was 3.1, 3.7, 7.5, and 12.7 months. Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and serum lactatdehydrogenase (LDH) level significantly predicted survival. CONCLUSION: In order to select the right patient to the right treatment and avoid overtreatment and suboptimal resource utilization in patients with very limited survival, improved prognostic tools are needed. The melanoma-specific GPA does not include extracranial disease extent or surrogate markers such as LDH. We suggest that a combination of KPS <70 and elevated LDH might better predict short survival than any of the GPA scores. This hypothesis should be confirmed in larger studies.

Assessment of tumor volumes in skull base glomus tumors using Gluc-Lys[(18)F]-TOCA positron emission tomography.

PURPOSE: To assess a threshold for Gluc-Lys[(18)F]-TOCA positron emission tomography (PET) in target volume delineation of glomus tumors in the skull base and to compare with MRI-based target volume delineation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The threshold for volume segmentation in the PET images was determined by a phantom study. Nine patients with a total of 11 glomus tumors underwent PET either with Gluc-Lys[(18)F]-TOCA or with (68)Ga-DOTATOC (in 1 case). All patients were additionally scanned by MRI. Positron emission tomography and MR images were transferred to a treatment-planning system; MR images were analyzed for lesion volume by two observers, and PET images were analyzed by a semiautomated thresholding algorithm. RESULTS: Our phantom study revealed that 32% of the maximum standardized uptake value is an appropriate threshold for tumor segmentation in PET-based target volume delineation of gross tumors. Target volume delineation by MRI was characterized by high interobserver variability. In contrast, interobserver variability was minimal if fused PET/MRI images were used. The gross tumor volumes (GTVs) determined by PET (GTV-PET) showed a statistically significant correlation with the GTVs determined by MRI (GTV-MRI) in primary tumors; in recurrent tumors higher differences were found. The mean GTV-MRI was significantly higher than mean GTV-PET. The increase added by MRI to the common volume was due to scar tissue with strong signal enhancement on MRI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with glomus tumors, Gluc-Lys[(18)F]-TOCA PET helps to reduce interobserver variability if an appropriate threshold for tumor segmentation has been determined for institutional conditions. Especially in patients with recurrent tumors after surgery, Gluc-Lys[(18)F]-TOCA PET improves the accuracy of GTV delineation.