INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the oncological outcomes of synchronous or metachronous brain metastasis (BM) of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) according to clinicopathologic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC (n = 93) with synchronous and metachronous BM were retrospectively identified. We analyzed patients and tumor characteristics, treatment methods, prognostic factors, BM progression, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (81.7%) received local therapy (stereotactic radiosurgery [60.2%], radiation therapy [22.6%], and neurosurgery [10.8%]), and 54 patients (58.1%) were treated with systemic medical therapy. In multivariable analysis, poor Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk (hazard ratio [HR] 3.672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.441-9.36; P = .0064), sarcomatoid component (HR 4.264; 95% CI, 2.062-8.820; P = .0001), and multiple BMs (HR 2.838; 95% CI, 1.690-4.767; P = .0001) were prognostic indicators of a poorer OS outcome. Local (HR 0.436; 95% CI, 0.237-0.802; P = .0076) and systemic treatment (HR 0.322; 95% CI, 0.190-0.548; P < .0001) were independent factors for a better OS. Although OS from initial RCC diagnosis in patients with metachronous BM was better than that for patients with synchronous BM, there were no differences found between synchronous and metachronous patients in terms of BM progression and OS after the diagnosis of BM. CONCLUSIONS: Poor MSKCC risk, sarcomatoid component of histology, and multiple BMs are prognostic indicators for poor OS in patients with BM from metastatic RCC. Systemic and/or local treatment improves the OS. Because the type of BM, synchronous or metachronous, does not influence BM progression or the OS outcome, routine evaluation for BM is not recommended.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the oncological outcomes of synchronous or metachronous brain metastasis (BM) of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) according to clinicopathologic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC (n = 93) with synchronous and metachronous BM were retrospectively identified. We analyzed patients and tumor characteristics, treatment methods, prognostic factors, BM progression, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (81.7%) received local therapy (stereotactic radiosurgery [60.2%], radiation therapy [22.6%], and neurosurgery [10.8%]), and 54 patients (58.1%) were treated with systemic medical therapy. In multivariable analysis, poor Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk (hazard ratio [HR] 3.672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.441-9.36; P = .0064), sarcomatoid component (HR 4.264; 95% CI, 2.062-8.820; P = .0001), and multiple BMs (HR 2.838; 95% CI, 1.690-4.767; P = .0001) were prognostic indicators of a poorer OS outcome. Local (HR 0.436; 95% CI, 0.237-0.802; P = .0076) and systemic treatment (HR 0.322; 95% CI, 0.190-0.548; P < .0001) were independent factors for a better OS. Although OS from initial RCC diagnosis in patients with metachronous BM was better than that for patients with synchronous BM, there were no differences found between synchronous and metachronous patients in terms of BM progression and OS after the diagnosis of BM. CONCLUSIONS: Poor MSKCC risk, sarcomatoid component of histology, and multiple BMs are prognostic indicators for poor OS in patients with BM from metastatic RCC. Systemic and/or local treatment improves the OS. Because the type of BM, synchronous or metachronous, does not influence BM progression or the OS outcome, routine evaluation for BM is not recommended.
Authors: U Harmenberg; M Lindskog; G Sinclair; M Stenman; H Benmakhlouf; P Wersäll; P Johnstone; M A Hatiboglu; J Mayer-da-Silva Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Georges Sinclair; M Stenman; H Benmakhlouf; P Johnstone; P Wersäll; M Lindskog; M A Hatiboglu; U Harmenberg Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2020-02-14