A prediction model for response to immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced melanoma.

Predicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population-based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal-external cross-validation. Included patients received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence-all at start of ICI-, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in-transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over-optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%-81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis.

Patient vulnerability in stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR): a preliminary ethical appraisal from the STOPSTORM.eu consortium.

This preliminary ethical appraisal from the STOPSTORM.eu consortium is meant to raise critical points that clinicians administering stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation should consider to meet the highest standards in medical ethics and thus promote quality of life of patients recruited for radiotherapy treatments at a stage in which they experience a significant degree of vulnerability.

From algorithms to action: improving patient care requires causality.

In cancer research there is much interest in building and validating outcome prediction models to support treatment decisions. However, because most outcome prediction models are developed and validated without regard to the causal aspects of treatment decision making, many published outcome prediction models may cause harm when used for decision making, despite being found accurate in validation studies. Guidelines on prediction model validation and the checklist for risk model endorsement by the American Joint Committee on Cancer do not protect against prediction models that are accurate during development and validation but harmful when used for decision making. We explain why this is the case and how to build and validate models that are useful for decision making.

Individualized trajectories in postradiotherapy neurocognitive functioning of patients with brain metastases.

Background: The increasing incidence of brain metastases (BMs) and improved survival rates underscore the necessity to investigate the effects of treatments on individuals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the individual trajectories of subjective and objective cognitive performance after radiotherapy in patients with BMs. Methods: The study population consisted of adult patients with BMs referred for radiotherapy. A semi-structured interview and comprehensive neurocognitive assessment (NCA) were used to assess both subjective and objective cognitive performance before, 3 months and ≥ 11 months after radiotherapy. Reliable change indices were used to identify individual, clinically meaningful changes. Results: Thirty-six patients completed the 3-month follow-up, and 14 patients completed the ≥ 11-months follow-up. Depending on the domain, subjective cognitive decline was reported by 11-22% of patients. In total, 50% of patients reported subjective decline in at least one cognitive domain. Intracranial progression 3 months postradiotherapy was a risk-factor for self-reported deterioration (P = .031). Objective changes were observed across all domains, with a particular vulnerability for decline in memory at 3 months postradiotherapy. The majority of patients (81%) experienced both a deterioration as well as improvement (eg, mixed response) in objective cognitive functioning. Results were similar for the long-term follow-up (3 to ≥11 months). No risk factors for objective cognitive change 3 months postradiotherapy were identified. Conclusions: Our study revealed that the majority of patients with BMs will show a mixed cognitive response following radiotherapy, reflecting the complex impact. This underscores the importance of patient-tailored NCAs 3 months postradiotherapy to guide optimal rehabilitation strategies.

Stereotactic Body and Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are commonly used treatment options for relieving metastatic bone pain. The effectiveness of SBRT compared with cEBRT in pain relief has been a subject of debate, and conflicting results have been reported. Objective: To compare the effectiveness associated with SBRT vs cEBRT for relieving metastatic bone pain. Data Sources: A structured search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on June 5, 2023. Additionally, results were added from a new randomized clinical trial (RCT) and additional unpublished data from an already published RCT. Study Selection: Comparative studies reporting pain response after SBRT vs cEBRT in patients with painful bone metastases. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies. Data were extracted for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and complete pain response at 1, 3, and 6 months after radiotherapy, according to the study's definition. Relative risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for each study. A random-effects model using a restricted maximum likelihood estimator was applied for meta-analysis. Results: There were 18 studies with 1685 patients included in the systematic review and 8 RCTs with 1090 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In 7 RCTs, overall pain response was defined according to the International Consensus on Palliative Radiotherapy Endpoints in clinical trials (ICPRE). The complete pain response was reported in 6 RCTs, all defined according to the ICPRE. The ITT meta-analyses showed that the overall pain response rates did not differ between cEBRT and SBRT at 1 (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30), 3 (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96-1.47), or 6 (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54) months. However, SBRT was associated with a higher complete pain response at 1 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.01), 3 (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.16-2.78), and 6 (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.24-4.91) months after radiotherapy. The PP meta-analyses showed comparable results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, patients with painful bone metastases experienced similar overall pain response after SBRT compared with cEBRT. More patients had complete pain alleviation after SBRT, suggesting that selected subgroups will benefit from SBRT.

Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR)-A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials on behalf of the STOPSTORM consortium.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) is a noninvasive treatment of refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review prospective trials on STAR and pool harmonized outcome measures in a meta-analysis. METHODS: After registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023439666), OVID Medline, OVID Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar search engine were searched on November 9, 2023, to identify reports describing results of prospective trials evaluating STAR for VT. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Meta-analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: We identified 10 prospective trials in which 82 patients were treated with STAR between 2016 and 2022. The 90-day rate of treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events was 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.2). The proportions of patients achieving given VT burden reductions were 0.61 (95% CI 0.45-0.74) for ≥95%, 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-0.91) for ≥75%, and 0.9 (95% CI 0.77-0.96) for ≥50% in 63 evaluable patients. The 1-year overall survival rate was 0.73 (95% CI 0.61-0.83) in 81 patients, 1-year freedom from recurrence was 0.30 (95% CI 0.16-0.49) in 61 patients, and 1-year recurrence-free survival was 0.21 in 60 patients (95% CI 0.08-0.46). Limitations include methodological heterogeneity across studies and moderate to significant risk of bias. CONCLUSION: STAR is a promising treatment method, characterized by moderate toxicity. We observed 1-year mortality of ∼27% in this population of critically ill patients suffering from refractory VT. Most patients experience a significant reduction in VT burden; however, 1-year recurrence rates are high. STAR should still be considered an investigational approach and recommended to patients primarily within the context of prospective trials.