Abstract AIMS In patients with newly-diagnosed glioblastoma, rapid early progression (REP) refers to tumour regrowth between surgery and postoperative chemoradiotherapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to appraise published data on REP to better characterise and understand this phenomenon. METHOD Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database from inception to 21/10/21. Studies describing the incidence of REP – tumour growth between the postoperative MRI scan and pre-radiotherapy MRI scan in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma, were included. The primary outcome was REP incidence. RESULTS From 1590 search results, 9 studies were included with 716 patients. The median age was 56.9 years (IQR 54.0- 58.8 years). There was a male predominance with a median male-to-female ratio of 1.4 (IQR 1.1-1.5). The median number of days between MRI scans was 34 days (IQR 18-45 days). The mean incidence rate of REP was 45.9% (range 19.3%-72.0%) and significantly lower in studies employing functional imaging to define REP (p<0.001). REP/non-REP groups were comparable with respect to age (p=0.99), gender (p=0.33) and time between scans (p=0.81). REP was associated with shortened overall survival (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43, p<0.001), shortened progression-free survival (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43, p<0.001), subtotal resection (OR 6.96, 95% CI 4-51-10.73, p<0.001) and IDH wildtype versus mutant tumours (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02-0.38, p=0.03). MGMT promoter methylation was not associated with REP (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.72-2.28, p=0.39). CONCLUSION REP occurs in almost half of patients with newly-diagnosed glioblastoma and has a strongly negative prognostic effect. Future studies should investigate its biology and effective treatment strategies.
Rapid early progression (REP) of glioblastoma is an independent negative prognostic factor: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract Background In patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, rapid early progression (REP) refers to tumor regrowth between surgery and postoperative chemoradiotherapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis appraised previously published data on REP to better characterize and understand it. Methods Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database from inception to October 21, 2021. Studies describing the incidence of REP—tumor growth between the postoperative MRI scan and pre-radiotherapy MRI scan in newly diagnosed glioblastoma were included. The primary outcome was REP incidence. Results From 1590 search results, 9 studies were included with 716 patients. The median age was 56.9 years (IQR 54.0–58.8 y). There was a male predominance with a median male-to-female ratio of 1.4 (IQR 1.1–1.5). The median number of days between MRI scans was 34 days (IQR 18–45 days). The mean incidence rate of REP was 45.9% (range 19.3%–72.0%) and significantly lower in studies employing functional imaging to define REP (P < .001). REP/non-REP groups were comparable with respect to age (P = .99), gender (P = .33) and time between scans (P = .81). REP was associated with shortened overall survival (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30–2.43, P < .001), shortened progression-free survival (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30–2.43, P < .001), subtotal resection (OR 6.96, 95% CI 4.51–10.73, P < .001) and IDH wild-type versus mutant tumors (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02–0.38, P = .03). MGMT promoter methylation was not associated with REP (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.72–2.28, P = .39). Conclusions REP occurs in almost half of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and has a strongly negative prognostic effect. Future studies should investigate its biology and effective treatment strategies.
Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases: Summary Report on the Updated Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and Definition of the Eligibility Quotient
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).
Evaluation of First-line Radiosurgery vs Whole-Brain Radiotherapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer Brain Metastases
Estrogen/progesterone receptor and HER2 discordance between primary tumor and brain metastases in breast cancer and its effect on treatment and survival
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.
Estimating survival for renal cell carcinoma patients with brain metastases: an update of the Renal Graded Prognostic Assessment tool