Association of Innovations in Radiotherapy and Systemic Treatments With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Melanoma Brain Metastasis From 2007 to 2016.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2020
01 07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
15
7
2020
pubmed:
15
7
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Treatments for melanoma brain metastasis changed between 2007 and 2016 with the advent of new radiotherapy techniques, targeted therapeutic agents, and immunotherapy. Changes in clinical outcomes over time have not been systematically investigated in large population-based studies. To investigate the association of innovations in radiotherapy techniques and systemic therapies with clinical outcomes among patients with melanoma brain metastasis. This population-based cohort study included all patients who received radiotherapy and/or surgery for the treatment of melanoma brain metastasis in Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2016. Brain treatment patterns and clinical outcomes were described by period (2007-2009, 2010-2012, and 2013-2016). Provincial administrative records were used to obtain data on surgery, radiotherapy, and drugs. Follow-up data were censored on August 31, 2016. A Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed. Data were analyzed between November 8, 2017 and May 13, 2020. Overall survival, whole-brain radiotherapy-free survival, and time to subsequent brain treatment. A total of 1096 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [14.0] years; 751 men [68.5%]) with melanoma brain metastasis received treatment in Ontario between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2016. Of those, 326 patients received treatment from 2007 to 2009 (period 1), 310 patients received treatment from 2010 to 2012 (period 2), and 460 patients received treatment from 2013 to 2016 (period 3). Patient age, other sociodemographic characteristics, and disease factors were similar between periods. Whole-brain radiotherapy was the first local brain-directed treatment used in 246 patients (75.5%; 95% CI, 70.8%-80.1%) in period 1, decreasing to 239 patients (52.0%; 95% CI, 47.4%-56.5%) in period 3. The use of partial-brain radiotherapy techniques as the first treatment increased from 11 patients (3.4%; 95% CI, 1.4%-5.3%) in period 1 to 98 patients (21.3%; 95% CI, 17.6%-25.0%) in period 3. After the first treatment for melanoma brain metastasis, the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy increased from less than 6 patients (<1.8%; 95% CI, <0.4% to <3.3%) in period 1 to 188 patients (40.9%; 95% CI, 36.4%-45.4%) in period 3. Overall survival was greater in period 3 (1-year survival, 21.8% [95% CI, 17.9%-25.9%] and 2-year survival, 13.8% [95% CI, 10.4%-17.8%]; Wilcoxon P = .001) compared with period 1 (1-year survival, 12.3% [95% CI, 9.0%-16.1%] and 2-year survival, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1%-9.5%]), with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56-0.77). The findings were unchanged after accounting for the variation in imaging practice between periods. Between period 1 and period 3, the use of whole-brain radiotherapy decreased (aHR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46), and the use of multiple brain-directed treatments increased (aHR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.48-3.14). These findings suggest that innovations in systemic therapy and radiotherapy are associated with improvements in clinical outcomes among patients with melanoma brain metastasis, even in population-wide routine practice. Overall survival improved over time, and the use of whole-brain radiotherapy decreased. However, many patients continued to receive whole-brain radiotherapy in the last period (2013-2016) examined.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32663310
pii: 2767882
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8204
pmc: PMC7339137
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e208204Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : MOP 137022
Pays : Canada
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Nov;10(11):1037-44
pubmed: 19801201
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Dec 1;99(5):1173-1178
pubmed: 28939223
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
Curr Oncol. 2007 Feb;14(1):27-33
pubmed: 17576461
Cancer Causes Control. 2016 Jan;27(1):137-42
pubmed: 26537120
J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(5):495-501
pubmed: 3367181
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 30;364(26):2507-16
pubmed: 21639808
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):335-40
pubmed: 22704984
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017 Aug 12;2(4):572-580
pubmed: 29204524
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 10;29(2):134-41
pubmed: 21041710
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Mar;7(3):250-75
pubmed: 19401060
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Nov;13(11):1087-95
pubmed: 23051966
Ann Oncol. 2014 Oct;25(10):2086-91
pubmed: 25057167
Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27
pubmed: 9431328
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Sep 1;11(9):1114-51
pubmed: 24029126
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 23;379(8):722-730
pubmed: 30134131
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 20;37(33):3132-3141
pubmed: 31553661
JAMA. 2016 Jul 26;316(4):401-409
pubmed: 27458945
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jun 1;92(2):368-75
pubmed: 25754629
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018 Oct;30(10):609-617
pubmed: 30196844
JAMA. 2006 Jun 7;295(21):2483-91
pubmed: 16757720
Lancet Oncol. 2012 May;13(5):459-65
pubmed: 22456429
Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1893-901
pubmed: 22608338
Ann Oncol. 2009 May;20 Suppl 4:129-31
pubmed: 19454433
Lancet Oncol. 2018 May;19(5):672-681
pubmed: 29602646