External validation of three prognostic scores for brain metastasis velocity in patients treated with intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION: Brain metastasis velocity (BMV) has been proposed as a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in patients with brain metastases (BMs). In this study, we conducted an external validation and comparative assessment of the performance of all three BMV scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for BM at a single center between 2014 and 2018 were identified. Where possible, all three BMV scores were calculated. Log-rank tests and linear, logistic and Cox regression analysis were used for validation and predictor identification of OS. RESULTS: For 333 of 384 brain metastasis patients, at least one BMV score could be calculated. In a sub-group of 187 patients, "classic" BMV was validated as categorical (p < 0.0001) and continuous variable (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.02-1.03; p < 0.0001). In a sub-group of 284 patients, "initial" BMV was validated as categorical variable (high-risk vs. low-risk; p < 0.01), but not as continuous variable (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99-1.04; p = 0.224). "Volume-based" BMV could not be validated in a sub-group of 104 patients. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, iBMV (HR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01-3.38; p < 0.05) and cBMV (HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.15 4.68; p < 0.05) were predictors for OS for intermediate-risk patients after first SRT and first DBFs, respectively. cBMV proved to be the dominant predictor for OS for high-risk patients (HR 2.99; 95% CI 1.30-6.91; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study externally validated cBMV and iBMV as prognostic scores for OS in patients treated with SRT for BMs whereas validation of vBMV was not achieved.

Comprehensive summary and retrospective evaluation of prognostic scores for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases treated with upfront radiosurgery in a modern patient collective.

BACKGROUND: Numerous prognostic scores (PS) for patients with brain metastases (BM) have been developed. Recently, PS based on laboratory parameters were introduced to better predict overall survival (OS). A comprehensive comparison of the wide range of scores in a modern patient collective is still missing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve PS considering clinical parameters only at the time of BM diagnosis were calculated for 470 patients receiving upfront SRS between January 2014 and March 2020. In a subcohort of 310 patients where a full laboratory dataset was available five additional prognostic scores were compared. Restricted mean survival time (RMST), partial likelihood and c-index were calculated as metrics for performance evaluation. Univariable and multivariable analysis were used to identify prognostic factors for OS. RESULTS: The median OS of the whole cohort was 15.8 months (95% C.I.: 13.4-20.1). All prognostic scores performed well in separating patients into different prognostic groups. RPA achieved the highest c-index, whereas GGS achieved highest partial likelihood with evaluation in the total cohort. With incorporation of the laboratory scores the recently suggested EC-GPA achieved highest c-index and highest partial likelihood. A prognostic score solely based on the assessment of performance status achieved considerable high performance as either 3- or 4-tiered score. Multivariable analysis revealed performance status, systemic disease status and laboratory parameters to be significantly associated with OS among variates included in prognostic scores. CONCLUSION: Although recent PS incorporating laboratory parameters show convincing performance in predicting overall survival, older scores relying on clinical parameters only are still valid and appealing as they are easier to calculate, and as overall performance is almost equal. Moreover, a score just based on performance status is not significantly inferior and should at least be assessed for informed decision making.

Distance to isocenter is not associated with an increased risk for local failure in LINAC-based single-isocenter SRS or SRT for multiple brain metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the distance between treatment isocenter and brain metastases on local failure in patients treated with a frameless linear-accelerator-based single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc (VMAT) SRS/SRT for multiple brain metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with SRT for brain metastases (BM) between April 2014 and May 2019 were included in this retrospective study. BM treated with a single-isocenter multiple-target (SIMT) SRT were evaluated for local recurrence-free intervals in dependency to their distance to the treatment isocenter. A Cox-regression model was used to investigate different predictor variables for local failure. Results were compared to patients treated with a single-isocenter-single-target (SIST) approach. RESULTS: In total 315 patients with a cumulative number of 1087 BM were analyzed in this study of which 140 patients and 708 BM were treated with SIMT SRS/SRT. Median follow-up after treatment was 13.9 months for SIMT approach and 11.9 months for SIST approach. One-year freedom from local recurrence was 87% and 94% in the SIST and SIMT group, respectively. Median distance to isocenter (DTI) was 4.7 cm (range 0.2-10.5) in the SIMT group. Local recurrence-free interval was not associated with the distance to the isocenter in univariable or multivariable Cox-regression analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed only volume as an independent significant predictor for local failure (p-value <0.05). CONCLUSION: SRS/SRT using single-isocenter VMAT for multiple targets achieved high local metastases control rates irrespective of distance to the isocenter, supporting efficacy of single-isocenter stereotactic radiation therapy for multiple brain metastases.