Search

Background and Introduction: Brain metastasis velocity (BMV) has been proposed as a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in patients with brain metastases (BMs). In this study, we conducted an external validation and comparative assessment of the performance of all three BMV scores., Materials and Methods: Patients treated with intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for BM at a single center between 2014 and 2018 were identified. Where possible, all three BMV scores were calculated. Log-rank tests and linear, logistic and Cox regression analysis were used for validation and predictor identification of OS., Results: For 333 of 384 brain metastasis patients, at least one BMV score could be calculated. In a sub-group of 187 patients, "classic" BMV was validated as categorical (p < 0.0001) and continuous variable (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.02-1.03; p < 0.0001). In a sub-group of 284 patients, "initial" BMV was validated as categorical variable (high-risk vs. low-risk; p < 0.01), but not as continuous variable (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99-1.04; p = 0.224). "Volume-based" BMV could not be validated in a sub-group of 104 patients. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, iBMV (HR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01-3.38; p < 0.05) and cBMV (HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.15 4.68; p < 0.05) were predictors for OS for intermediate-risk patients after first SRT and first DBFs, respectively. cBMV proved to be the dominant predictor for OS for high-risk patients (HR 2.99; 95% CI 1.30-6.91; p < 0.05)., Conclusion: This study externally validated cBMV and iBMV as prognostic scores for OS in patients treated with SRT for BMs whereas validation of vBMV was not achieved., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest 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., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Numerous prognostic scores (PS) for patients with brain metastases (BM) have been developed. Recently, PS based on laboratory parameters were introduced to better predict overall survival (OS). A comprehensive comparison of the wide range of scores in a modern patient collective is still missing., Materials and Methods: Twelve PS considering clinical parameters only at the time of BM diagnosis were calculated for 470 patients receiving upfront SRS between January 2014 and March 2020. In a subcohort of 310 patients where a full laboratory dataset was available five additional prognostic scores were compared. Restricted mean survival time (RMST), partial likelihood and c-index were calculated as metrics for performance evaluation. Univariable and multivariable analysis were used to identify prognostic factors for OS., Results: The median OS of the whole cohort was 15.8 months (95% C.I.: 13.4-20.1). All prognostic scores performed well in separating patients into different prognostic groups. RPA achieved the highest c-index, whereas GGS achieved highest partial likelihood with evaluation in the total cohort. With incorporation of the laboratory scores the recently suggested EC-GPA achieved highest c-index and highest partial likelihood. A prognostic score solely based on the assessment of performance status achieved considerable high performance as either 3- or 4-tiered score. Multivariable analysis revealed performance status, systemic disease status and laboratory parameters to be significantly associated with OS among variates included in prognostic scores., Conclusion: Although recent PS incorporating laboratory parameters show convincing performance in predicting overall survival, older scores relying on clinical parameters only are still valid and appealing as they are easier to calculate, and as overall performance is almost equal. Moreover, a score just based on performance status is not significantly inferior and should at least be assessed for informed decision making., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Dr. Weller reports grants and personal fees from Apogenix, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Merck (EMD), grants from Quercis, grants and personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Adastra, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Medac, personal fees from Nerviano, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Orbus, personal fees from yMabs, outside the submitted work. Dr. Andratschke reports grants from SPHN Imaging – Swiss National Funds, from Clinical Research Priority Program University of Zurich, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Debiopharm, personal fees from Astrazeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ViewRay, grants from Brainlab, outside the submitted work. Dr. Tanadini-Lang reports outside the submitted work that her husband is an employee of Varian, a Siemens Healthineer company. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)