ABSTRACT
Background: Different prognostic scales exist in patients with brain metastasis, particularly in lung cancer. The Graded Prognostic Assessment for lung cancer using molecular markers (Lung-molGPA index) for brain metastases is a powerful prognostic tool that effectively identifies patients at different risks. However, these scales do not include perilesional edema diameter (PED) associated with brain metastasis. Current evidence suggests that PED might compromise the delivery and efficacy of radiotherapy to treat BM. This study explored the association between radiotherapy efficacy, PED extent, and gross tumor diameter (GTD). Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the intracranial response (iORR), intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), and overall survival (OS) according to the extent of PED and GT. Methods: Out of 114 patients with BM at baseline or throughout the disease, 65 were eligible for the response assessment. The GTD and PED sum were measured at BM diagnosis and after radiotherapy treatment. According to a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, cutoff values were set at 27 mm and 17 mm for PED and GT, respectively. Results: Minor PED was independently associated with a better iORR [78.8% vs. 50%, OR 3.71 (95% CI 1.26-10.99); p = 0.018] to brain radiotherapy. Median iPFS was significantly shorter in patients with major PED [6.9 vs. 11.8 months, HR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7-4.4); p < 0.001] independently of other prognostic variables like the Lung-molGPA and GTD. A major PED also negatively impacted the median OS [18.4 vs. 7.9 months, HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.4-3.3); p = 0.001]. Conclusion: Higher PED was associated with an increased risk of intracranial progression and a lesser probability of responding to brain radiotherapy in patients with metastatic lung cancer. We encourage prospective studies to confirm our findings.
ABSTRACT
The use of geriatric assessment (GA) by oncology specialists in Mexico is low. We aimed to explore factors associated with the evaluation of individual GA domains by Mexican oncology specialists. We performed an exploratory analysis of a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study consisting of an online cross-sectional survey of Mexican oncology specialists and follow-up interviews on the use of GA in cancer care. For each GA domain, we performed multivariable logistic regression analyses with the frequency of evaluation of the domains as the dependent variable (dichotomised as never/rarely/sometimes versus most of the time/always). A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Qualitative data from the interviews were analysed inductively. Of 196 respondents, 62% were male, 50% were surgical oncologists, 51% took care of >10 patients per day and 61.7% had access to a geriatrician. Self-perceived confidence in managing common geriatric conditions was associated with the evaluation of specific GA domains. For instance, self-perceived confidence in managing dementia (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.42-5.51, p = 0.008) was associated with cognition evaluation, while for evaluation of falls, self-perceived confidence in evaluation of falls (OR 6.31; 95% CI 3.19-12.46, p < 0.001) was significantly associated. Follow-up interviews showed quality and appropriateness of evaluations may not be ideal: in many cases, physicians do not use guideline-recommended tools. For example, evaluation of cognition is commonly performed through non-validated methods which may miss the detection of patients with an impairment in this domain, partly due to limitations in knowledge and time to use recommended tools. In conclusion, self-perceived confidence in evaluating and managing common situations in older adults was associated with the evaluation of GA domains as part of everyday practice in a sample of oncology specialists in Mexico. This analysis supports the use of educational interventions to boost knowledge and confidence regarding the proper use of validated GA tools among oncology specialists.
