Predicting survival in melanoma patients treated with concurrent targeted- or immunotherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy : Melanoma brain metastases prognostic score.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
/ therapeutic use
Brain Neoplasms
/ mortality
Combined Modality Therapy
/ methods
Female
Humans
Immunotherapy
/ methods
Male
Melanoma
/ mortality
Middle Aged
Molecular Targeted Therapy
/ methods
Prognosis
Radiosurgery
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Brain metastases
Immunotherapy
Melanoma
Stereotactic
Targeted therapy
molGPA
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2020
01 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
12
04
2020
accepted:
01
05
2020
entrez:
4
6
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
13
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Melanoma patients frequently develop brain metastases. The most widely used score to predict survival is the molGPA based on a mixed treatment of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). In addition, systemic therapy was not considered. We therefore aimed to evaluate the performance of the molGPA score in patients homogeneously treated with SRT and concurrent targeted therapy or immunotherapy (TT/IT). This retrospective analysis is based on an international multicenter database (TOaSTT) of melanoma patients treated with TT/IT and concurrent (≤30 days) SRT for brain metastases between May 2011 and May 2018. Overall survival (OS) was studied using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank testing. Uni- and multivariate analysis was performed to analyze prognostic factors for OS. One hundred ten patients were analyzed. 61, 31 and 8% were treated with IT, TT and with a simultaneous combination, respectively. A median of two brain metastases were treated per patient. After a median follow-up of 8 months, median OS was 8.4 months (0-40 months). The molGPA score was not associated with OS. Instead, cumulative brain metastases volume, timing of metastases (syn- vs. metachronous) and systemic therapy with concurrent IT vs. TT influenced OS significantly. Based on these parameters, the VTS score (volume-timing-systemic therapy) was established that stratified patients into three groups with a median OS of 5.1, 18.9 and 34.5 months, respectively (p = 0.001 and 0.03). The molGPA score was not useful for this cohort of melanoma patients undergoing local therapy for brain metastases taking into account systemic TT/IT. For these patients, we propose a prognostic VTS score, which needs to be validated prospectively.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Melanoma patients frequently develop brain metastases. The most widely used score to predict survival is the molGPA based on a mixed treatment of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). In addition, systemic therapy was not considered. We therefore aimed to evaluate the performance of the molGPA score in patients homogeneously treated with SRT and concurrent targeted therapy or immunotherapy (TT/IT).
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective analysis is based on an international multicenter database (TOaSTT) of melanoma patients treated with TT/IT and concurrent (≤30 days) SRT for brain metastases between May 2011 and May 2018. Overall survival (OS) was studied using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank testing. Uni- and multivariate analysis was performed to analyze prognostic factors for OS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred ten patients were analyzed. 61, 31 and 8% were treated with IT, TT and with a simultaneous combination, respectively. A median of two brain metastases were treated per patient. After a median follow-up of 8 months, median OS was 8.4 months (0-40 months). The molGPA score was not associated with OS. Instead, cumulative brain metastases volume, timing of metastases (syn- vs. metachronous) and systemic therapy with concurrent IT vs. TT influenced OS significantly. Based on these parameters, the VTS score (volume-timing-systemic therapy) was established that stratified patients into three groups with a median OS of 5.1, 18.9 and 34.5 months, respectively (p = 0.001 and 0.03).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The molGPA score was not useful for this cohort of melanoma patients undergoing local therapy for brain metastases taking into account systemic TT/IT. For these patients, we propose a prognostic VTS score, which needs to be validated prospectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32487100
doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01558-8
pii: 10.1186/s13014-020-01558-8
pmc: PMC7268472
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
135Subventions
Organisme : Varian Medical Systems
ID : NA
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Cancer Med. 2013 Dec;2(6):899-906
pubmed: 24403263
J Neurosurg. 2012 Dec;117 Suppl:38-44
pubmed: 23205787
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Feb 1;70(2):510-4
pubmed: 17931798
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 1;37(4):745-51
pubmed: 9128946
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jul;18(7):863-873
pubmed: 28592387
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Aug;1(5):668-76
pubmed: 26181286
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Oct;84:44-54
pubmed: 28783540
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Feb;50(3):611-21
pubmed: 24295639
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Mar 15;46(5):1155-61
pubmed: 10725626
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jul 1;77(3):655-61
pubmed: 19942357
J Clin Med Res. 2018 Mar;10(3):178-181
pubmed: 29416574
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Feb 15;25(4):1272-1279
pubmed: 30630828
J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Apr 11;7(1):102
pubmed: 30975225
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Mar;110:11-20
pubmed: 30739835
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Mar 2;:
pubmed: 30836168
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Sep 1;99(1):22-30
pubmed: 28816150
Am J Surg. 1978 Jun;135(6):807-10
pubmed: 665907
J Neurosurg. 1998 Jan;88(1):11-20
pubmed: 9420067
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 15;99(4):812-816
pubmed: 29063850
J Neurooncol. 2018 Nov;140(2):341-349
pubmed: 30132164
J Neurosurg. 2008 Dec;109 Suppl:77-86
pubmed: 19123892
J Neurosurg. 2018 Jan;128(1):14-22
pubmed: 28106495
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Apr;15(4):387-95
pubmed: 24621620
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Apr;75:169-178
pubmed: 28236768
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 8;366(10):925-31
pubmed: 22397654
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 5:v126-32
pubmed: 26314774
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jan 10;13(1):3
pubmed: 29316943
Nature. 2015 Apr 16;520(7547):373-7
pubmed: 25754329
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 10;29(2):134-41
pubmed: 21041710
Melanoma Res. 2017 Aug;27(4):358-368
pubmed: 28509765
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Oct;17(10):1312-21
pubmed: 26014049
Ann Oncol. 2016 Mar;27(3):434-41
pubmed: 26712903
Lancet Oncol. 2018 May;19(5):672-681
pubmed: 29602646
J Neurosurg. 2012 Aug;117(2):227-33
pubmed: 22702482
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):993-999
pubmed: 26194677
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 23;379(8):722-730
pubmed: 30134131
Melanoma Res. 2019 Apr;29(2):187-195
pubmed: 30802230