OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to validate a new prognostic index for patients with brain metastases. This index, the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA), is based on an analysis of 1960 patients whose data were extracted from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) database. The GPA is based on 4 criteria: age, Karnofsky Performance Scale score, number of brain metastases, and the presence/absence of extracranial metastases. Each of the 4 criteria is given a score of 0, 0.5, or 1.0, so the patient with best prognosis would have a GPA score of 4.0. METHODS: Between April 2005 and December 2006, 140 eligible patients with brain metastases were treated at the Gamma Knife Center at the University of Minnesota. The GPA score was calculated for each patient, and the score was then correlated with survival. Survival duration was calculated from the date treatment began for the brain metastases. Eligibility criteria included patients treated with whole-brain radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, or both. RESULTS: The median survival time in months observed in the RTOG and Minnesota data by GPA score was as follows: GPA 3.5-4.0, 11.0 and 21.7; GPA 3.0, 8.9 and 17.5; GPA 1.5-2.5, 3.8 and 5.9; and GPA 0-1.0, 2.6 and 3.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The University of Minnesota data correlate well with the RTOG data and validate the use of the GPA as an effective prognostic index for patients with brain metastases. Clearly, not all patients with brain metastases have the same prognosis, and treatment decisions should be individualized accordingly. The GPA score does appear to be as prognostic as the RPA and is less subjective (because the RPA requires assessment of whether the primary disease is controlled), more quantitative, and easier to use and remember. A multi-institutional validation study of the GPA is ongoing.
OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to validate a new prognostic index for patients with brain metastases. This index, the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA), is based on an analysis of 1960 patients whose data were extracted from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) database. The GPA is based on 4 criteria: age, Karnofsky Performance Scale score, number of brain metastases, and the presence/absence of extracranial metastases. Each of the 4 criteria is given a score of 0, 0.5, or 1.0, so the patient with best prognosis would have a GPA score of 4.0. METHODS: Between April 2005 and December 2006, 140 eligible patients with brain metastases were treated at the Gamma Knife Center at the University of Minnesota. The GPA score was calculated for each patient, and the score was then correlated with survival. Survival duration was calculated from the date treatment began for the brain metastases. Eligibility criteria included patients treated with whole-brain radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, or both. RESULTS: The median survival time in months observed in the RTOG and Minnesota data by GPA score was as follows: GPA 3.5-4.0, 11.0 and 21.7; GPA 3.0, 8.9 and 17.5; GPA 1.5-2.5, 3.8 and 5.9; and GPA 0-1.0, 2.6 and 3.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The University of Minnesota data correlate well with the RTOG data and validate the use of the GPA as an effective prognostic index for patients with brain metastases. Clearly, not all patients with brain metastases have the same prognosis, and treatment decisions should be individualized accordingly. The GPA score does appear to be as prognostic as the RPA and is less subjective (because the RPA requires assessment of whether the primary disease is controlled), more quantitative, and easier to use and remember. A multi-institutional validation study of the GPA is ongoing.
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Norbert Kased; David Roberge; Zhiyuan Xu; Ryan Shanley; Xianghua Luo; Penny K Sneed; Samuel T Chao; Robert J Weil; John Suh; Amit Bhatt; Ashley W Jensen; Paul D Brown; Helen A Shih; John Kirkpatrick; Laurie E Gaspar; John B Fiveash; Veronica Chiang; Jonathan P S Knisely; Christina Maria Sperduto; Nancy Lin; Minesh Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Seungtaek Lim; Soohyeon Lee; Jae Yun Lim; Ji Soo Park; Jin Sil Seong; Won Seok Chang; Kwang-Hyub Han; Hye Jin Choi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Mudit Chowdhary; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Robert H Press; Jaymin Jhaveri; Zachary S Buchwald; Philip A Blumenfeld; Gaurav Marwaha; Aidnag Diaz; Dian Wang; Ross A Abrams; Jeffrey J Olson; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Walter J Curran; Kirtesh R Patel Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Nayan Lamba; Rachel Brigell Kearney; Paul J Catalano; Michael J Hassett; Patrick Y Wen; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Ayal A Aizer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Kimberly L Johung; Norman Yeh; Neil B Desai; Terence M Williams; Tim Lautenschlaeger; Nils D Arvold; Matthew S Ning; Albert Attia; Christine M Lovly; Sarah Goldberg; Kathryn Beal; James B Yu; Brian D Kavanagh; Veronica L Chiang; D Ross Camidge; Joseph N Contessa Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Norbert Kased; David Roberge; Zhiyuan Xu; Ryan Shanley; Xianghua Luo; Penny K Sneed; Samuel T Chao; Robert J Weil; John Suh; Amit Bhatt; Ashley W Jensen; Paul D Brown; Helen A Shih; John Kirkpatrick; Laurie E Gaspar; John B Fiveash; Veronica Chiang; Jonathan P S Knisely; Christina Maria Sperduto; Nancy Lin; Minesh Mehta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A S Berghoff; A Ilhan-Mutlu; A Wöhrer; M Hackl; G Widhalm; J A Hainfellner; K Dieckmann; T Melchardt; B Dome; H Heinzl; P Birner; M Preusser Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Diego M Marzese; Richard A Scolyer; Maria Roqué; Laura M Vargas-Roig; Jamie L Huynh; James S Wilmott; Rajmohan Murali; Michael E Buckland; Garni Barkhoudarian; John F Thompson; Donald L Morton; Daniel F Kelly; Dave S B Hoon Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 12.300