Chuong, Michael

PURPOSE External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has gained delayed acceptance as a recommended first-line treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), given limited evidence that it improves overall survival (OS). We analyzed individual patient data (IPD) from an international cohort to assess OS among patients with HCC treated with EBRT. METHODS We performed a systematic review of publications that assessed EBRT, met prespecified technical standards for HCC, and reported OS (search date December 15, 2022). Corresponding authors were invited to submit IPD for the study. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to determine OS and restricted mean survival time (RMST) stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage and treatment status (ie, treatment-naïve and experienced). We performed random effects Cox proportional hazards modeling to assess clinical characteristics associated with OS. RESULTS Data were provided on 4,913 patients treated with EBRT with a median follow-up time of 5.0 years. The median OS was 6.8 years (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.7) for BCLC-0 and 4.6 years (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.1) for BCLC-A. Among treatment-naïve patients, the median OS was not reached (95% CI, 8.6 to not reached) for BCLC-0 and was 5.4 years (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.7) for BCLC-A. In multivariable models, more advanced BCLC stage, higher tumor burden, worse performance status, and Child-Pugh class B or C were associated with a higher risk of mortality. Ablative radiation dose and more recent year of treatment were associated with a reduced risk of death. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this study represents the largest multinational cohort of patients with HCC treated with EBRT. OS outcomes with EBRT for very early- and early-stage HCC appear to be comparable with resection, thermal ablation, and other ablative locoregional therapies. These data support the inclusion of EBRT in the BCLC HCC clinical decision-making process.

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).