Citations

Abstract Background Guidelines to provide recommendations about driving restrictions for patients with brain metastases are lacking. We aim to determine whether clinical neurologic examination is sufficient to predict suitability to drive in these patients by comparison with an occupational therapy driving assessment (OTDA). Methods We prospectively evaluated the concordance between neurology assessment of suitability to drive (pass/fail) and OTDA in 41 individuals with brain metastases. Neuro-oncology evaluation included an interview and neurological examination. Participants subsequently underwent OTDA during which a battery of objective measures of visual, cognitive, and motor skills related to driving was administered. Results The mean age of patients who failed OTDA was age 68.9 years vs 59.3 years in the group members who passed (P = .0046). The sensitivity of the neurology assessment to predict driving fitness compared with OTDA was 16.1% and the specificity 90%. The 31 patients who failed OTDA were more likely to fail Vision Coach, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Trail Making B tests. Conclusions There was poor association between the assessment of suitability to drive by neurologists and the outcome of the OTDA in patients with brain metastases. Subtle deficits that may impair the ability to drive safely may not be evident on neurologic examination. The positive predictive value was high to predict OTDA failure. Age could be a factor affecting OTDA performance. The results raise questions about the choice of assessments in making recommendations about driving fitness in people with brain metastases. OTDA should be strongly considered in patients with brain metastases who wish to continue driving.

Abstract Background: Sex is recognized as a significant determinant of outcome among glioblastoma patients, but the relative prognostic importance of glioblastoma features has not been thoroughly explored for sex differences. Methods: Combining multi-modal MR images, biomathematical models, and patient clinical information, this investigation assesses which pretreatment variables have a sex-specific impact on the survival of glioblastoma patients (299 males and 195 females). Results: Among males, tumor (T1Gd) radius was a predictor of overall survival (HR=1.027, p=0.044). Among females, higher tumor cell net invasion rate was a significant detriment to overall survival (HR=1.011, p<0.001). Female extreme survivors had significantly smaller tumors (T1Gd) (p=0.010 t-test), but tumor size was not correlated with female overall survival (p=0.955 CPH). Both male and female extreme survivors had significantly lower tumor cell net proliferation rates than other patients (M p=0.004, F p=0.001, t-test). Additionally, extent of resection, tumor laterality, and IDH1 mutation status were also found to have sex-specific effects on overall survival. Conclusion: Despite similar distributions of the MR imaging parameters between males and females, there was a sex-specific difference in how these parameters related to outcomes.

Male and female glioblastomas are biologically distinct, and improving outcomes may require sex-specific approaches to treatment.

e16555 Background: The ProtecT trial underscores the importance of treatment in men with prostate cancer and life expectancies > 10 years and the validity of radiation therapy (RT). RT can be given with photons or protons (PT). To address the controversy of which is better, clinical outcomes of photon-based intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and PT cohorts from 2 institutions were directly compared. Methods: Under respective IRB approvals, data from 2 cohorts were analyzed. The first was 301 men treated with ultrasound image guided IMRT from 2000-05 to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. The second was 1214 men treated with fiducial image guided PT from 2006-10 to 78 CGE in 39 fractions. Median age and followup were 74 y and 7.2 y for IMRT and 66 y and 5.6 y for PT. Hormone therapy (ADT) was used with IMRT and PT, respectively, in 3% and 7% of low-risk patients, 25% and 9.9% of intermediate-risk, and 91% and 57.8% of high-risk. Comparative endpoints were age-stratified 5-year (5Y) survival (OS), ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic (GU) toxicity, and 5Y freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP). Results: There was a lower prevalence of GI (1.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.0065) and GU (4.3% vs 0.1%, p < 0.0001) toxicity at last follow-up in the PT group. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, OS rates were 90.8% and 88.7% in men ≥75 (p = 0.4083). In men < 75, OS rates were 91.6% and 97.5% in the IMRT and PT low-risk patients (p = 0.003), 92.1% and 95.5% in the IMRT and PT intermediate-risk (p = 0.0535), and 92.0% and 90.0% (p = 0.4975) in the IMRT and PT high-risk. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, respectively, FFBP rates were 92.2% and 98.9% for low-risk patients (p < 0.0001), 87.3% and 94.5% for intermediate-risk patients(p = 0.0226), and 80.3% and 74.4% for high-risk patients (p = 0.5154). Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of men treated with IMRT and PT for prostate cancer, FFBP rates were better with PT for men with low- and intermediate-risk disease and similar in men with high-risk disease despite longer and more frequent use of ADT in the IMRT cohort. This study underscores the difficulty of comparing retrospective series, with differences noted in age, RT dose, and ADT use between cohorts. However, the magnitude of improvement with PT is intriguing and warrants prospective testing.

PurposeDespite the intra- and intertumoral heterogeneity seen in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), there is little definitive data on the underlying cause of the differences in patient survivals. Serial imaging assessment of tumor growth allows quantification of tumor growth kinetics (TGK) measured in terms of changes in the velocity of radial expansion seen on imaging. Because a systematic study of this entire TGK phenotype—growth before treatment and during each treatment to recurrence —has never been coordinately studied in GBMs, we sought to identify whether patients cluster into discrete groups on the basis of their TGK.Patients and MethodsFrom our multi-institutional database, we identified 48 patients who underwent maximally safe resection followed by radiotherapy with imaging follow-up through the time of recurrence. The patients were then clustered into two groups through a k-means algorithm taking as input only the TGK before and during treatment.ResultsThere was a significant survival difference between the clusters ( P = .003). Paradoxically, patients among the long-lived cluster had significantly larger tumors at diagnosis ( P = .027) and faster growth before treatment ( P = .003) but demonstrated a better response to adjuvant chemotherapy ( P = .048). A predictive model was built to identify which cluster patients would likely fall into on the basis of information that would be available to clinicians immediately after radiotherapy (accuracy, 90.3%).ConclusionDichotomizing the heterogeneity of GBMs into two populations—one faster growing yet more responsive with increased survival and one slower growing yet less responsive with shorter survival—suggests that many patients who receive standard-of-care treatments may get better benefit from select alternative treatments.