Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to report our initial experience with weekly tele-video "virtual" on-treatment visits (vOTVs), describe the logistics of implementation, report the results of patient and physician surveys, and discuss the barriers, limitations, and benefits of vOTVs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: vOTVs were piloted at 2 centers and within 1 week were expanded to 4 additional centers. Patients participating in vOTVs were surveyed about their satisfaction with vOTVs, the quality of vOTVs, and confidence in their physician's ability to manage their care through vOTVs, as well as their support of and preferences related to vOTVs. Participating physicians were surveyed about their comfort and satisfaction with vOTVs. Medical directors at nonparticipating centers within our network were surveyed regarding their reasoning for not using vOTVs. RESULTS: In week 1, 72 of 81 patients between 2 pilot centers were seen using vOTVs. In week 2, 189 of 211 patients were seen using vOTVs at 6 centers. Patient satisfaction with and confidence in their physician's ability to address their concerns through the vOTV was high at 4.75 on a 5-point scale. Patients were overall very supportive (4.67) and found the quality of the visits to be as good as or better than their prior in-person weekly on-treatment visit (3.75). Physicians participating in the vOTVs felt very comfortable in their ability to manage patients through this platform (5.0) and on average did not report any difference in terms of efficiency of visits (3.0). CONCLUSIONS: vOTVs were easy to implement and well received by patients and participating physicians. Our experience suggests that vOTVs can be implemented rapidly using available technology and with a high degree of patient and physician satisfaction during this pandemic with similar efficiency to in-person on-treatment visits.

Preoperative stereotactic radiosurgery before planned resection of brain metastases: updated analysis of efficacy and toxicity of a novel treatment paradigm.

OBJECTIVEPreoperative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a feasible alternative to postoperative SRS and may lower the risk of radiation necrosis (RN) and leptomeningeal disease (LMD) recurrence. The study goal was to report the efficacy and toxicity of preoperative SRS in an expanded patient cohort with longer follow-up period relative to prior reports.METHODSThe records for patients with brain metastases treated with preoperative SRS and planned resection were reviewed. Patients with classically radiosensitive tumors, planned adjuvant whole brain radiotherapy, or no cranial imaging at least 1 month after surgery were excluded. Preoperative SRS dose was based on lesion size and was reduced approximately 10-20% from standard dosing. Surgery generally followed within 48 hours.RESULTSThe study cohort consisted of 117 patients with 125 lesions treated with single-fraction preoperative SRS and planned resection. Of the 117 patients, 24 patients were enrolled in an initial prospective trial; the remaining 93 cases were consecutively treated patients who were retrospectively reviewed. Most patients had a single brain metastasis (70.1%); 42.7% had non-small cell lung cancer, 18.8% had breast cancer, 15.4% had melanoma, and 11.1% had renal cell carcinoma. Gross total resection was performed in 95.2% of lesions. The median time from SRS to surgery was 2 days, the median SRS dose was 15 Gy, and the median gross tumor volume was 8.3 cm3. Event cumulative incidence at 2 years was as follows: cavity local recurrence (LR), 25.1%; distant brain failure, 60.2%; LMD, 4.3%; and symptomatic RN, 4.8%. The median overall survival (OS) and 2-year OS rate were 17.2 months and 36.7%, respectively. Subtotal resection (STR, n = 6) was significantly associated with increased risk of cavity LR (hazard ratio [HR] 6.67, p = 0.008) and worsened OS (HR 2.63, p = 0.05) in multivariable analyses.CONCLUSIONSThis expanded and updated analysis confirms that single-fraction preoperative SRS confers excellent cavity local control with very low risk of RN or LMD. Preoperative SRS has several potential advantages compared to postoperative SRS, including reduced risk of RN due to smaller irradiated volume without need for cavity margin expansion and reduced risk of LMD due to sterilization of tumor cells prior to spillage at the time of surgery. Subtotal resection, though infrequent, is associated with significantly worse cavity LR and OS. Based on these results, a randomized trial of preoperative versus postoperative SRS is being designed.

External validity of two nomograms for predicting distant brain failure after radiosurgery for brain metastases in a bi-institutional independent patient cohort.

Patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BM) are at increased risk of distant brain failure (DBF). Two nomograms have been recently published to predict individualized risk of DBF after SRS. The goal of this study was to assess the external validity of these nomograms in an independent patient cohort. The records of consecutive patients with BM treated with SRS at Levine Cancer Institute and Emory University between 2005 and 2013 were reviewed. Three validation cohorts were generated based on the specific nomogram or recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) entry criteria: Wake Forest nomogram (n = 281), Canadian nomogram (n = 282), and Canadian RPA (n = 303) validation cohorts. Freedom from DBF at 1-year in the Wake Forest study was 30% compared with 50% in the validation cohort. The validation c-index for both the 6-month and 9-month freedom from DBF Wake Forest nomograms was 0.55, indicating poor discrimination ability, and the goodness-of-fit test for both nomograms was highly significant (p < 0.001), indicating poor calibration. The 1-year actuarial DBF in the Canadian nomogram study was 43.9% compared with 50.9% in the validation cohort. The validation c-index for the Canadian 1-year DBF nomogram was 0.56, and the goodness-of-fit test was also highly significant (p < 0.001). The validation accuracy and c-index of the Canadian RPA classification was 53% and 0.61, respectively. The Wake Forest and Canadian nomograms for predicting risk of DBF after SRS were found to have limited predictive ability in an independent bi-institutional validation cohort. These results reinforce the importance of validating predictive models in independent patient cohorts.

Single-Fraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) Alone Versus Surgical Resection and SRS for Large Brain Metastases: A Multi-institutional Analysis.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) dose is limited by brain metastasis (BM) size. The study goal was to retrospectively determine whether there is a benefit for intracranial outcomes and overall survival (OS) for gross total resection with single-fraction SRS versus SRS alone for patients with large BMs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A large BM was defined as ≥4 cm3 (2 cm in diameter) prior to the study. We reviewed the records of consecutive patients treated with single-fraction SRS alone or surgery with preoperative or postoperative SRS between 2005 and 2013 from 2 institutions. RESULTS: Overall, 213 patients with 223 treated large BMs were included; 66 BMs (30%) were treated with SRS alone and 157 (70%) with surgery and SRS (63 preoperatively and 94 postoperatively). The groups (SRS vs surgery and SRS) were well balanced except regarding lesion volume (median, 5.9 cm3 vs 9.6 cm3; P<.001), median number of BMs (1.5 vs 1, P=.002), median SRS dose (18 Gy vs 15 Gy, P<.001), and prior whole-brain radiation therapy (33% vs 5%, P<.001). The local recurrence (LR) rate was significantly lower with surgery and SRS (1-year LR rate, 36.7% vs 20.5%; P=.007). There was no difference in radiation necrosis (RN) by resection status, but there was a significantly increased RN rate with postoperative SRS versus with preoperative SRS and with SRS alone (1-year RN rate, 22.6% vs 5% and 12.3%, respectively; P<.001). OS was significantly higher with surgery and SRS (2-year OS rate, 38.9% vs 19.8%; P=.01). Both multivariate adjusted analyses and propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, gross total resection with SRS was associated with significantly reduced LR compared with SRS alone for patients with large BMs. Postoperative SRS was associated with the highest rate of RN. Surgical resection with SRS may improve outcomes in patients with a limited number of large BMs compared with SRS alone. Further studies are warranted.

External Validity of a Risk Stratification Score Predicting Early Distant Brain Failure and Salvage Whole Brain Radiation Therapy After Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases.

BACKGROUND: A scoring system using pretreatment factors was recently published for predicting the risk of early (≤6 months) distant brain failure (DBF) and salvage whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone. Four risk factors were identified: (1) lack of prior WBRT; (2) melanoma or breast histologic features; (3) multiple brain metastases; and (4) total volume of brain metastases <1.3 cm3, with each factor assigned 1 point. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of this scoring system and its appropriateness for clinical use in an independent external patient population. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 247 patients with 388 brain metastases treated with SRS between 2010 at 2013 at Levine Cancer Institute. The Press (Emory) risk score was calculated and applied to the validation cohort population, and subsequent risk groups were analyzed using cumulative incidence. RESULTS: The low-risk (LR) group had a significantly lower risk of early DBF than did the high-risk (HR) group (22.6% vs 44%, P=.004), but there was no difference between the HR and intermediate-risk (IR) groups (41.2% vs 44%, P=.79). Total lesion volume <1.3 cm3 (P=.004), malignant melanoma (P=.007), and multiple metastases (P<.001) were validated as predictors for early DBF. Prior WBRT and breast cancer histologic features did not retain prognostic significance. Risk stratification for risk of early salvage WBRT were similar, with a trend toward an increased risk for HR compared with LR (P=.09) but no difference between IR and HR (P=.53). CONCLUSION: The 3-level Emory risk score was shown to not be externally valid, but the model was able to stratify between 2 levels (LR and not-LR [combined IR and HR]) for early (≤6 months) DBF. These results reinforce the importance of validating predictive models in independent cohorts. Further refinement of this scoring system with molecular information and in additional contemporary patient populations is warranted.