4.6 Article

Prognostic factors for outcomes after whole-brain irradiation of brain metastases from relatively radioresistant tumors: a retrospective analysis

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-582

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study investigated potential prognostic factors in patients treated with whole-brain irradiation (WBI) alone for brain metastases from relatively radioresistant tumors such as malignant melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and colorectal cancer. Additionally, a potential benefit from escalating the radiation dose was investigated. Methods: Data from 220 patients were retrospectively analyzed for overall survival and local control. Nine potential prognostic factors were evaluated: tumor type, WBI schedule, age, gender, Karnofsky performance score, number of brain metastases, extracerebral metastases, interval from diagnosis of cancer to WBI, and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class. Results: Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were 32% and 19%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, WBI doses > 30 Gy (p = 0.038), KPS >= 70 (p < 0.001), only 1-3 brain metastases (p = 0.007), no extracerebral metastases (p < 0.001), and RPA class 1 (p < 0.001) were associated with improved survival. Local control rates at 6 and 12 months were 37% and 15%, respectively. In the multivariate analyses, KPS >= 70 (p < 0.001), only 1-3 brain metastases (p < 0.001), and RPA class 1 (p < 0.001) were associated with improved local control. In RPA class 3 patients, survival rates at 6 months were 10% (35 of 39 patients) after 10 x 3 Gy and 9% (2 of 23 patients) after greater doses, respectively (p = 0.98). Conclusions: Improved outcomes were associated with WBI doses > 30 Gy, better performance status, fewer brain metastases, lack of extracerebral metastases, and lower RPA class. Patients receiving WBI alone appear to benefit from WBI doses > 30 Gy. However, such a benefit is limited to RPA class 1 or 2 patients.

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

4.6
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