Personalized radiotherapy of brain metastases: survival prediction by means of dichotomized or differentiated blood test results?
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:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
01
02
2023
accepted:
29
03
2023
medline:
28
4
2023
pubmed:
28
4
2023
entrez:
28
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The validated LabBM score (laboratory parameters in patients with brain metastases) represents a widely applicable survival prediction model, which incorporates 5 blood test results (serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin, platelets and hemoglobin). All tests are classified as normal or abnormal, without accounting for the wide range of abnormality observed in practice. We tested the hypothesis that improved stratification might be possible, if more granular test results are employed. Retrospective analysis of 198 patients managed with primary whole-brain radiotherapy in one of the institutions who validated the original LabBM score. For two blood tests (albumin, CRP), discrimination was best for the original dichotomized version (normal/abnormal). For two others (LDH, hemoglobin), a three-tiered classification was best. The number of patients with low platelet count was not large enough for detailed analyses. A modified LabBM score was developed, which separates the intermediate of originally 3 prognostic groups into 2 statistically significantly different strata, resulting in a 4-tiered score. This initial proof-of-principle study suggests that granular blood test results might contribute to further improvement of the score, or alternatively development of a nomogram, if additional large-scale studies confirm the encouraging results of the present analysis.
Sections du résumé
Background and objectives
UNASSIGNED
The validated LabBM score (laboratory parameters in patients with brain metastases) represents a widely applicable survival prediction model, which incorporates 5 blood test results (serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin, platelets and hemoglobin). All tests are classified as normal or abnormal, without accounting for the wide range of abnormality observed in practice. We tested the hypothesis that improved stratification might be possible, if more granular test results are employed.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Retrospective analysis of 198 patients managed with primary whole-brain radiotherapy in one of the institutions who validated the original LabBM score.
Results
UNASSIGNED
For two blood tests (albumin, CRP), discrimination was best for the original dichotomized version (normal/abnormal). For two others (LDH, hemoglobin), a three-tiered classification was best. The number of patients with low platelet count was not large enough for detailed analyses. A modified LabBM score was developed, which separates the intermediate of originally 3 prognostic groups into 2 statistically significantly different strata, resulting in a 4-tiered score.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
This initial proof-of-principle study suggests that granular blood test results might contribute to further improvement of the score, or alternatively development of a nomogram, if additional large-scale studies confirm the encouraging results of the present analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37114122
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1156161
pmc: PMC10126728
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1156161Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Nieder, Andratschke and Grosu.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Front Oncol. 2022 Dec 01;12:1081558
pubmed: 36531068
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020 May;17(5):279-299
pubmed: 32080373
Radiat Oncol. 2009 Mar 04;4:10
pubmed: 19261187
Neurooncol Adv. 2020 Mar 16;2(1):vdaa034
pubmed: 32793882
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2021 Sep 30;26(5):740-746
pubmed: 34760308
J Neurooncol. 2022 Dec;160(3):643-648
pubmed: 36335526
Radiat Oncol. 2019 Mar 11;14(1):41
pubmed: 30866972
Front Oncol. 2022 May 24;12:857622
pubmed: 35686091
Front Oncol. 2019 Apr 04;9:206
pubmed: 31019891
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 10;38(32):3773-3784
pubmed: 32931399
J Clin Med Res. 2019 May;11(5):321-325
pubmed: 31019625
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Sep 01;19(9):1255-1262
pubmed: 28096493
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020 May-Jun;25(3):307-311
pubmed: 32194350
Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 07;12:855182
pubmed: 35330715
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jun;159:17-20
pubmed: 33675870
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jul 1;77(3):655-61
pubmed: 19942357
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jul-Aug;12(4):265-282
pubmed: 35534352
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Jul;108(1):123-7
pubmed: 23830191
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021 Sep-Oct;11(5):354-365
pubmed: 34119447