4.7 Article

Multi-institutional validation of brain metastasis velocity, a recently defined predictor of outcomes following stereotactic radiosurgery

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 168-174

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.08.011

关键词

Brain metastasis velocity; Stereotactic radiosurgery; Whole brain radiation therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Brain metastasis velocity (BMV) is a prognostic metric that describes the recurrence rate of new brain metastases after initial treatment with radiosurgery (SRS). We have previously risk stratified patients into high, intermediate, and low-risk BMV groups, which correlates with overall survival (OS). We sought to externally validate BMV in a multi-institutional setting. Methods: Patients from nine academic centers were treated with upfront SRS; the validation cohort consisted of data from eight institutions not previously used to define BMV. Patients were classified by BMV into low (<4 BMV), intermediate (4-13 BMV), and high-risk groups (>13 BMV). Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to estimate the effect of BMV and salvage modality on OS. Results: Of 2829 patients, 2092 patients were included in the validation dataset. Of these, 921 (44.0%) experienced distant brain failure (DBF). Median OS from initial SRS was 11.2 mo. Median OS for BMV < 4, BMV 4-13, and BMV > 13 were 12.5 mo, 7.0 mo, and 4.6 mo (p < 0.0001). After multivariate regression modeling, melanoma histology (beta: 10.10, SE: 1.89, p < 0.0001) and number of initial brain metastases (beta: 1.52, SE: 0.34, p < 0.0001) remained predictive of BMV (adjusted R-2 = 0.06). Conclusions: This multi-institutional dataset validates BMV as a predictor of OS following initial SRS. BMV is being utilized in upcoming multi-institutional randomized controlled trials as a stratification variable for salvage whole brain radiation versus salvage SRS after DBF. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据