Neil C Estabrook1, Stephen T Lutz2, Cynthia S Johnson3, Simon S Lo4, Mark A Henderson1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. Blanchard Valley Regional Cancer Center, Findlay, OH, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the clinical utility of the Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) and Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) in predicting outcomes for moderate prognosis patients with brain metastases. METHODS & MATERIALS: We reviewed 101 whole brain radiotherapy cases. RPA and GPA were calculated. Overall survival was compared. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients had moderate prognosis. RPA patient characteristics for increased death hazard were ≤10 WBRT fractions or no surgery/radiosurgery. GPA patients had increased death risk with no surgery/radiosurgery or lower Karnofsky Performance Status. CONCLUSION: The indices have similar predicted survival. Patients scored by RPA with longer radiation schedules had longer survival; patients scored by GPA did not. This indicates GPA is more clinically useful, leaving less room for subjective treatment choices.
AIM: To compare the clinical utility of the Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) and Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) in predicting outcomes for moderate prognosis patients with brain metastases. METHODS & MATERIALS: We reviewed 101 whole brain radiotherapy cases. RPA and GPA were calculated. Overall survival was compared. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients had moderate prognosis. RPA patient characteristics for increased death hazard were ≤10 WBRT fractions or no surgery/radiosurgery. GPA patients had increased death risk with no surgery/radiosurgery or lower Karnofsky Performance Status. CONCLUSION: The indices have similar predicted survival. Patients scored by RPA with longer radiation schedules had longer survival; patients scored by GPA did not. This indicates GPA is more clinically useful, leaving less room for subjective treatment choices.
Authors: John H Suh; Gregory M M Videtic; Amr M Aref; Isabelle Germano; Brian J Goldsmith; Joseph P Imperato; Karen J Marcus; Michael W McDermott; Mark W McDonald; Roy A Patchell; H Ian Robins; C Leland Rogers; Aaron H Wolfson; Franz J Wippold; Laurie E Gaspar Journal: Curr Probl Cancer Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Brian Berkey; Laurie E Gaspar; Minesh Mehta; Walter Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: E Weltman; J V Salvajoli; R A Brandt; R de Morais Hanriot; F E Prisco; J C Cruz; S R de Oliveira Borges; D B Wajsbrot Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Changhong Yu; Andrew E Sloan; Jaime Vengoechea; Meihua Wang; James J Dignam; Michael A Vogelbaum; Paul W Sperduto; Minesh P Mehta; Mitchell Machtay; Michael W Kattan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: May N Tsao; Dirk Rades; Andrew Wirth; Simon S Lo; Brita L Danielson; Laurie E Gaspar; Paul W Sperduto; Michael A Vogelbaum; Jeffrey D Radawski; Jian Z Wang; Michael T Gillin; Najeeb Mohideen; Carol A Hahn; Eric L Chang Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-01-30