Kirkpatrick, John P.

Abstract Background Multi-modality therapy has improved survival for many patients with brain metastases. However, neurocognitive sequelae remain a challenge. While advances in radiotherapy have reduced toxicity, the potential interaction with targeted therapy and immunotherapy and the consequent impact on neurocognitive outcomes remain poorly defined. We appraised the current evidence on neurocognitive outcomes in the era of modern combined-modality therapy. Methods This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and included clinical trials reporting neurocognitive outcomes in patients with brain metastases receiving radiotherapy ± concurrent systemic therapies. Studies published through December 31, 2024 were identified through PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science using pre-defined MeSH term-based search strings. Results 39 studies from 1997-2024 involving 6,617 patients met inclusion criteria (n = 27 whole-brain radiotherapy [WBRT]; n = 12 radiosurgery), including six studies evaluating combined-modality therapy in 1,161 patients. Baseline cognitive evaluation was performed inconsistently, but neurocognitive deficits were frequently observed prior to treatment. Most randomized trials reported improved cognitive outcomes and quality of life with advanced radiotherapy techniques (e.g., hippocampal avoidance, radiosurgery) vs WBRT. Among 20 randomized trials comparing radiotherapy with or without a concurrent investigational systemic therapy, only four included neurocognitive assessments. There was no evidence of cognitive sequelae with combined-modality therapy, though evaluable trials were limited due to inconsistent reporting of neurocognitive functioning. Conclusion As survival improves in patients with brain metastases, preserved cognition is an important outcome measure. The lack of neurocognitive endpoints in pivotal brain metastasis trials represents a critical evidence gap. The interaction between radiotherapy and novel systemic therapies, and their combined effects on neurocognition, remain unknown. To address this, we recommend 1) integrating sensitive, pragmatic, and tailored neurocognitive assessments into oncology trials to quantify additive toxicity, 2) early and systematically incorporating neuropsychology into care pathways, 3) expanding radiation dose-sparing and radioprotective strategies, and 4) evaluating the utility of cognitive rehabilitation programs.

PURPOSE Survival for patients with melanoma has recently improved. The propensity of melanoma to metastasize to the brain remains a common and serious feature of this disease. The purposes of this study were to evaluate prognostic factors for patients with newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) in a large cohort treated with modern multimodal therapies, compare those results with those in prior eras, and update the Melanoma Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). METHODS Univariable and multivariable (MVA) analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival were performed on 1,796 patients with newly diagnosed MBM treated between January 01, 2015, and December 31, 2021, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness of potential predictors. Significant variables in combined MVA were used to update the Melanoma GPA. Comparisons were made with legacy cohorts. RESULTS Median survivals for cohorts A (1985-2007, n = 481), B (2006-2015, n = 823), and C (2015-2021, n = 1,796) were 6.7, 9.8, and 16.6 months and median follow-up times were 40.1, 43.6, and 48.8 months, respectively. In combined MVA, significant prognostic factors for survival were higher Karnofsky Performance Status, fewer MBMs, absence of extracranial metastases, lower serum lactate dehydrogenase, and no immunotherapy before MBM. These factors were incorporated into the updated Melanoma GPA. The combined median and 3-year survivals for patients with GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, and 2.5-4.0 were 5.4, 13.2, and 43.2 months and 12.4%, 28.8%, and 51.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION Prognostic factors have changed and survival has improved for patients with MBM but varies widely by GPA. The updated Melanoma GPA calculator (BrainMetGPA), available free online, can be used to estimate survival, individualize treatment, stratify clinical trials, guide surveillance, and augment clinical trial eligibility. Multidisciplinary treatment is essential. Trials are needed to elucidate the optimal sequencing of various therapeutic modalities.

We describe the design and results from the BraTS 2023 Intracranial Meningioma Segmentation Challenge. The BraTS Meningioma Challenge differed from prior BraTS Glioma challenges in that it focused on meningiomas, which are typically benign extra-axial tumors with diverse radiologic and anatomical presentation and a propensity for multiplicity. Nine participating teams each developed deep-learning automated segmentation models using image data from the largest multi-institutional systematically expert annotated multilabel multi-sequence meningioma MRI dataset to date, which included 1000 training set cases, 141 validation set cases, and 283 hidden test set cases. Each case included T2, FLAIR, T1, and T1Gd brain MRI sequences with associated tumor compartment labels delineating enhancing tumor, non-enhancing tumor, and surrounding non-enhancing FLAIR hyperintensity. Participant automated segmentation models were evaluated and ranked based on a scoring system evaluating lesion-wise metrics including dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff Distance. The top ranked team had a lesion-wise median dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.976, 0.976, and 0.964 for enhancing tumor, tumor core, and whole tumor, respectively and a corresponding average DSC of 0.899, 0.904, and 0.871, respectively. These results serve as state-of-the-art benchmarks for future pre-operative meningioma automated segmentation algorithms. Additionally, we found that 1286 of 1424 cases (90.3%) had at least 1 compartment voxel abutting the edge of the skull-stripped image edge, which requires further investigation into optimal pre-processing face anonymization steps.

PURPOSE Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility. METHODS A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation ( P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non–small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).

Abstract Background Breast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). Methods A retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM. Results The overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors—nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17–28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15–19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27–18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30–18 mo, P = 0.08). Conclusions Receptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly. Key Points 1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients. 2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively. 3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment.