Brian R Hirshman1, Bayard Wilson1, Mir Amaan Ali1, James A Proudfoot2, Takao Koiso3, Osamu Nagano4, Bob S Carter1, Toru Serizawa5, Masaaki Yamamoto3, Clark C Chen1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Center for Translational and Applied Neuro-Oncology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Katsuta Hospital Mito GammaHouse, Hitachi-Naka, Japan. 4. Gamma Knife House, Chiba Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Ichihara, Japan. 5. Tsukiji Neurological Clinic, Tokyo Gamma Unit Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two intracranial tumor volume variables have been shown to prognosticate survival of stereotactic-radiosurgery-treated brain metastasis patients: the largest intracranial tumor volume (LITV) and the cumulative intracranial tumor volume (CITV). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the prognostic value of the Scored Index for Radiosurgery (SIR) model can be improved by replacing one of its components-LITV-with CITV. METHODS: We compared LITV and CITV in terms of their survival prognostication using a series of multivariable models that included known components of the SIR: age, Karnofsky Performance Score, status of extracranial disease, and the number of brain metastases. Models were compared using established statistical measures, including the net reclassification improvement (NRI > 0) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). The analysis was performed in 2 independent cohorts, each consisting of ∼3000 patients. RESULTS: In both cohorts, CITV was shown to be independently predictive of patient survival. Replacement of LITV with CITV in the SIR model improved the model's ability to predict 1-yr survival. In the first cohort, the CITV model showed an NRI > 0 improvement of 0.2574 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1890-0.3257) and IDI of 0.0088 (95% CI 0.0057-0.0119) relative to the LITV model. In the second cohort, the CITV model showed a NRI > 0 of 0.2604 (95% CI 0.1796-0.3411) and IDI of 0.0051 (95% CI 0.0029-0.0073) relative to the LITV model. CONCLUSION: After accounting for covariates within the SIR model, CITV offers superior prognostic value relative to LITV for stereotactic radiosurgery-treated brain metastasis patients.
BACKGROUND: Two intracranial tumor volume variables have been shown to prognosticate survival of stereotactic-radiosurgery-treated brain metastasispatients: the largest intracranial tumor volume (LITV) and the cumulative intracranial tumor volume (CITV). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the prognostic value of the Scored Index for Radiosurgery (SIR) model can be improved by replacing one of its components-LITV-with CITV. METHODS: We compared LITV and CITV in terms of their survival prognostication using a series of multivariable models that included known components of the SIR: age, Karnofsky Performance Score, status of extracranial disease, and the number of brain metastases. Models were compared using established statistical measures, including the net reclassification improvement (NRI > 0) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). The analysis was performed in 2 independent cohorts, each consisting of ∼3000 patients. RESULTS: In both cohorts, CITV was shown to be independently predictive of patient survival. Replacement of LITV with CITV in the SIR model improved the model's ability to predict 1-yr survival. In the first cohort, the CITV model showed an NRI > 0 improvement of 0.2574 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1890-0.3257) and IDI of 0.0088 (95% CI 0.0057-0.0119) relative to the LITV model. In the second cohort, the CITV model showed a NRI > 0 of 0.2604 (95% CI 0.1796-0.3411) and IDI of 0.0051 (95% CI 0.0029-0.0073) relative to the LITV model. CONCLUSION: After accounting for covariates within the SIR model, CITV offers superior prognostic value relative to LITV for stereotactic radiosurgery-treated brain metastasispatients.
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: Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Karol M Pencina; A Cecile J W Janssens; Philip Greenland Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lia M Halasz; Jane C Weeks; Bridget A Neville; Nathan Taback; Rinaa S Punglia Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C Y Shiau; P K Sneed; H K Shu; K R Lamborn; M W McDermott; S Chang; P Nowak; P L Petti; V Smith; L J Verhey; M Ho; E Park; W M Wara; P H Gutin; D A Larson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Kathleen F Kerr; Zheyu Wang; Holly Janes; Robyn L McClelland; Bruce M Psaty; Margaret S Pepe Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Mark E Linskey; David W Andrews; Anthony L Asher; Stuart H Burri; Douglas Kondziolka; Paula D Robinson; Mario Ammirati; Charles S Cobbs; Laurie E Gaspar; Jay S Loeffler; Michael McDermott; Minesh P Mehta; Tom Mikkelsen; Jeffrey J Olson; Nina A Paleologos; Roy A Patchell; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Mir Amaan Ali; Brian R Hirshman; Bayard Wilson; Alexander J Schupper; Rushikesh Joshi; James A Proudfoot; Steven J Goetsch; John F Alksne; Kenneth Ott; Hitoshi Aiyama; Osamu Nagano; Bob S Carter; Veronica Chiang; Toru Serizawa; Masaaki Yamamoto; Clark C Chen Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 2.104
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: Carmine Antonio Donofrio; Andrea Cavalli; Marco Gemma; Lucia Riccio; Alessandra Donofrio; Pietro Panni; Camillo Ferrari da Passano; Antonella Del Vecchio; Angelo Bolognesi; Riccardo Soffietti; Pietro Mortini Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: John H Suh; Rupesh Kotecha; Samuel T Chao; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Arjun Sahgal; Eric L Chang Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: David M Routman; Shelly X Bian; Kevin Diao; Jonathan L Liu; Cheng Yu; Jason Ye; Gabriel Zada; Eric L Chang Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Eric W Sankey; Vadim Tsvankin; Matthew M Grabowski; Gautam Nayar; Kristen A Batich; Aida Risman; Cosette D Champion; April K S Salama; C Rory Goodwin; Peter E Fecci Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Yilin Cao; Hanbo Chen; Arjun Sahgal; Darby Erler; Serena Badellino; Tithi Biswas; Roi Dagan; Matthew C Foote; Alexander V Louie; Ian Poon; Umberto Ricardi; Kristin J Redmond Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 4.452