BACKGROUND: The best available treatment of patients with one to three brain metastases is still unclear. This study compared the results of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) plus SRS (WBRT+SRS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Survival (OS), intracerebral control (IC), and local control of treated metastases (LC) were retrospectively analyzed in 144 patients receiving SRS alone (n=93) or WBRT+SRS (n=51). Eight additional potential prognostic factors were evaluated: age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG-PS), tumor type, number of brain metastases, extracerebral metastases, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, and interval from tumor diagnosis to irradiation. Subgroup analyses were performed for RPA class I and II patients. RESULTS: 1-year-OS was 53% after SRS and 56% after WBRT+SRS (p=0.24). 1-year-IC rates were 51% and 66% (p=0.015), respectively. 1-year-LC rates were 66% and 87% (p=0.003), respectively. On multivariate analyses, OS was associated with age (p=0.004), ECOG-PS (p=0.005), extracerebral metastases (p<0.001), RPA class (p<0.001), and interval from tumor diagnosis to irradiation (p<0.001). IC was associated with interval from tumor diagnosis to irradiation (p=0.004) and almost with treatment (p=0.09), and LC with treatment (p=0.026) and almost with interval (p=0.08). The results of the subgroup analyses were similar to those of the entire cohort. The increase in IC was stronger in RPA class I patients. CONCLUSION: WBRT+SRS resulted in better IC and LC but not better OS than SRS alone. Because also IC and LC are important end-points, additional WBRT appears justified in patients with one to three brain metastases, in particular in RPA class I patients.
BACKGROUND: The best available treatment of patients with one to three brain metastases is still unclear. This study compared the results of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) plus SRS (WBRT+SRS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Survival (OS), intracerebral control (IC), and local control of treated metastases (LC) were retrospectively analyzed in 144 patients receiving SRS alone (n=93) or WBRT+SRS (n=51). Eight additional potential prognostic factors were evaluated: age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG-PS), tumor type, number of brain metastases, extracerebral metastases, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, and interval from tumor diagnosis to irradiation. Subgroup analyses were performed for RPA class I and II patients. RESULTS: 1-year-OS was 53% after SRS and 56% after WBRT+SRS (p=0.24). 1-year-IC rates were 51% and 66% (p=0.015), respectively. 1-year-LC rates were 66% and 87% (p=0.003), respectively. On multivariate analyses, OS was associated with age (p=0.004), ECOG-PS (p=0.005), extracerebral metastases (p<0.001), RPA class (p<0.001), and interval from tumor diagnosis to irradiation (p<0.001). IC was associated with interval from tumor diagnosis to irradiation (p=0.004) and almost with treatment (p=0.09), and LC with treatment (p=0.026) and almost with interval (p=0.08). The results of the subgroup analyses were similar to those of the entire cohort. The increase in IC was stronger in RPA class I patients. CONCLUSION: WBRT+SRS resulted in better IC and LC but not better OS than SRS alone. Because also IC and LC are important end-points, additional WBRT appears justified in patients with one to three brain metastases, in particular in RPA class I patients.
Authors: P K Sneed; K R Lamborn; J M Forstner; M W McDermott; S Chang; E Park; P H Gutin; T L Phillips; W M Wara; D A Larson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: William F Regine; Jennifer L Huhn; Roy A Patchell; William H St Clair; James Strottmann; Ali Meigooni; Michael Sanders; A Byron Young Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christina A Meyers; Jennifer A Smith; Andrea Bezjak; Minesh P Mehta; James Liebmann; Tim Illidge; Ian Kunkler; Jean-Michel Caudrelier; Peter D Eisenberg; Jacobus Meerwaldt; Ross Siemers; Christian Carrie; Laurie E Gaspar; Walter Curran; See-Chun Phan; Richard A Miller; Markus F Renschler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jiankui Yuan; Jian Z Wang; Simon Lo; John C Grecula; Mario Ammirati; Joseph F Montebello; Hualin Zhang; Nilendu Gupta; William T C Yuh; Nina A Mayr Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marc D Piroth; Bernd Gagel; Michael Pinkawa; Sven Stanzel; Branka Asadpour; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Penny K Sneed; John H Suh; Steven J Goetsch; Seema N Sanghavi; Richard Chappell; John M Buatti; William F Regine; Eduardo Weltman; Vernon J King; John C Breneman; Paul W Sperduto; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Dirk Rades; Stefan Huttenlocher; Mai Trong Khoa; Pham VAN Thai; Dagmar Hornung; Steven E Schild Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Martin Kocher; Andrea Wittig; Marc Dieter Piroth; Harald Treuer; Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Maximilian Ruge; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621