Chan, Michael David

Abstract Histopathology is the gold standard for distinguishing tumor recurrence from treatment-induced necrosis but differentiating pseudoprogression from true recurrence is challenging in tumors with ambiguous morphological features. Prior research reported a 36% inter-rater agreement during suspected recurrence (Holdhoff et al., 2019). While serial radiographic and laboratory assessments are common, serial histopathological assessments are not. This study evaluated agreement and factors influencing assessment of active and inactive tumors through single and multiple time-point histopathological assessments. Patients who underwent initial and subsequent reoperation were identified, and their available histology slides were examined retrospectively. Four independent neuropathologists conducted two types of reviews: single time-point reviews using most recent biopsy/surgery slides, and multiple time-point reviews comparing images from initial and repeat biopsies taken 1-3 months apart. Neuropathologists completed a questionnaire assessing various tumor characteristics. Assignments were categorized as "active tumor," "treatment effect," or "unable to classify." 324 assessments were conducted (108 single time-point, 216 multiple time-point). Intraclass correlation coefficients for single vs. multiple time-point assessments were 0.72-0.93 for active tumors and 0.57-0.86 for inactive tumors. Pathologists' assessment of % inactive tumor was influenced by mitotic activity (p= 0.0028), cellularity (p< 0.0001), hyalinized vessels (p= 0.0019), and necrosis (p= 0.0046). Evaluation of % active tumor was influenced by hyalinized vessels (p= 0.0006), mitotic activity (p< 0.0001), cellularity (p< 0.0001), and microvascular proliferation (p= 0.0093), with the latter three factors specifically affecting final sign-out pathology. Serial histopathological assessment didn’t affect determination of % active or inactive tumor. No association between % inactive tumor and fibrinoid necrosis for single time-point (p= 0.34) but a strong negative association was seen for serial assessment (p= 0.0006). Inter-rater agreement was higher for identifying active tumors than inactive tumors in both case reviews. Changes in necrosis between tissue samples in single vs. multiple timepoint assessments influenced pathologists' assessment of % inactive tumor.

Abstract Introduction Historical reservations regarding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) brain metastases include concerns for short-interval and diffuse central nervous system (CNS) progression, poor prognoses, and increased neurological mortality specific to SCLC histology. We compared SRS outcomes for SCLC and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) where SRS is well established. Methods Multicenter first-line SRS outcomes for SCLC and NSCLC from 2000 to 2022 were retrospectively collected (n = 892 SCLC, n = 4785 NSCLC). Data from the prospective Japanese Leksell Gamma Knife Society (JLGK0901) clinical trial of first-line SRS were analyzed as a comparison cohort (n = 98 SCLC, n = 814 NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) and CNS progression were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and Fine-Gray models, respectively, with multivariable adjustment for cofactors including age, sex, performance status, year, extracranial disease status, and brain metastasis number and volume. Mutation-stratified analyses were performed in propensity score–matched retrospective cohorts of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive NSCLC, mutation-negative NSCLC, and SCLC. Results OS was superior for patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset (median OS = 10.5 vs 8.6 months; P < .001) and in the JLGK0901 dataset. Hazard estimates for first CNS progression favoring NSCLC were similar in both datasets but reached statistical significance in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 0.92, P = .001). In the propensity score–matched cohorts, there were continued OS advantages for NSCLC patients (median OS = 23.7 [EGFR and ALK positive NSCLC] vs 13.6 [mutation-negative NSCLC] vs 10.4 months [SCLC], pairwise P values < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences in CNS progression were observed in the matched cohorts. Neurological mortality and number of lesions at CNS progression were similar for NSCLC and SCLC patients. Leptomeningeal progression was increased in patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 1.61, 95% confidence interval = 1.14 to 2.26, P = .007). Conclusions After SRS, SCLC histology was associated with shorter OS compared to NSCLC. CNS progression occurred earlier in SCLC patients overall but was similar in patients matched on baseline factors. SCLC was not associated with increased neurological mortality, number of lesions at CNS progression, or leptomeningeal progression compared to NSCLC. These findings may better inform clinical expectations and individualized decision making regarding SRS for SCLC patients.

Abstract The incidence of brain metastasis is increasing as improvements in systemic therapy lead to increased survival. This provides new and challenging clinical decisions for patients who are trying to balance the risk of recurrence or progression with treatment-related side effects, and it requires appropriate management strategies from multidisciplinary teams. Improvements in prognostic assessment and systemic therapy with increasing activity in the brain allow for individualized care to better guide the use of local therapies and/or systemic therapy. Here, we review the current landscape of brain-directed therapy for the treatment of brain metastasis in the context of recent improved systemic treatment options. We also discuss emerging treatment strategies including targeted therapies for patients with actionable mutations, immunotherapy, modern whole-brain radiation therapy, radiosurgery, surgery, and clinical trials.