Personalized treatment of brain metastases: Evolving survival prediction models may benefit from evaluation of serum tumor markers (narrative review).
biomarkers
brain metastases
prognostic model
score
tumor markers
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
27
10
2022
accepted:
18
11
2022
entrez:
19
12
2022
pubmed:
20
12
2022
medline:
20
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Treatment of a limited number of brain metastases (oligometastases) might include complex and sometimes invasive approaches, e.g. neurosurgical resection followed by post-operative stereotactic radiotherapy, and thus, correct identification of patients who are appropriate candidates is crucial. Both, staging procedures that visualize the true number of metastastic lesions and prognostic assessments that identify patients with limited survival, who should be managed with less complex, palliative approaches, are necessary before proceeding with local treatment that aims at eradication of all oligometastases. Some of the prognostic models, e.g. the LabBM score (laboratory parameters in patients with brain metastases), include blood biomarkers believed to represent surrogate markers of disease extent. In a recent study, patients with oligometastases and a LabBM score of 0 (no abnormal biomarkers) had an actuarial 5-year survival rate of 27% after neurosurgical resection and 39% after stereotactic radiotherapy. Other studies have tied serum tumor markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) to survival outcomes. Even if head-to-head comparisons and large-scale definitive analyses are lacking, the available data suggest that attempts to integrate tumor marker levels in blood biomarker-based survival prediction models are warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36531068
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1081558
pmc: PMC9751746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1081558Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Nieder, Andratschke and Grosu.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020 May;17(5):279-299
pubmed: 32080373
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Jul;142(1):76-82
pubmed: 27117923
Neurooncol Adv. 2020 Mar 16;2(1):vdaa034
pubmed: 32793882
In Vivo. 2022 Mar-Apr;36(2):801-805
pubmed: 35241535
Tumour Biol. 2015 Aug;36(8):6471-6
pubmed: 25801247
Oncol Lett. 2016 Mar;11(3):2249-2254
pubmed: 26998157
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018 Jun;126:13-18
pubmed: 29759555
J Thorac Dis. 2019 May;11(5):1765-1771
pubmed: 31285868
J Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;106(2):144-8
pubmed: 22287384
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 10;38(32):3773-3784
pubmed: 32931399
J Clin Med Res. 2019 May;11(5):321-325
pubmed: 31019625
Strahlenther Onkol. 2013 Dec;189(12):996-1000
pubmed: 24104872
Br J Cancer. 2021 Mar;124(7):1294-1300
pubmed: 33473170
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Sep 01;19(9):1255-1262
pubmed: 28096493
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020 May-Jun;25(3):307-311
pubmed: 32194350
Am J Clin Oncol. 2021 Feb 1;44(2):53-57
pubmed: 33350680
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Aug;18(8):1040-1048
pubmed: 28687375
Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 9;10(1):4340
pubmed: 32152433
Surg Today. 2014 Jul;44(7):1321-7
pubmed: 24748535
Front Oncol. 2022 May 24;12:857622
pubmed: 35686091
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004 Sep;26(3):488-93
pubmed: 15302040
Front Oncol. 2019 Apr 04;9:206
pubmed: 31019891
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 Nov;32(11):713-727
pubmed: 32718762
Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 07;12:855182
pubmed: 35330715
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jun;159:17-20
pubmed: 33675870
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan;21(1):e18-e28
pubmed: 31908301
Front Oncol. 2021 Aug 27;11:667847
pubmed: 34513666