Dirk Rades1,2, Oliver Blanck3, Mai Trong Khoa2,4, Pham VAN Thai4, Nguyen Quang Hung4, Liesa Dziggel5, Steven E Schild6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany rades.dirk@gmx.net. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam. 3. Saphir Radiosurgery Center Northern Germany, Güstrow, Germany. 4. Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Center, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: We developed a scoring system to predict 1-year survival after radiosurgery for 1-3 brain metastases. This study aimed to validate this system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-six new patients were included in this validation study. Like in the original scoring-system, three factors (age, performance status, extra-cranial metastases) were used. For each factor, 1-year survival rates in % were divided by 10, and the three scoring-points were added for each patient. RESULTS: Patient's scores were 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 or 17 points with 1-year survival rates ranging between 31% and 80%. Two groups, 10-14 and 16-17 points were formed. In the 14-16 points group, 1-year survival was 47% (versus 33% in the preceding study, p=0.060). In the 16-17 points group, 1-year survival rates were 75% versus 77% (p=0.79). CONCLUSION: In the more favorable group, the scoring-system was very reproducible. In the less favorable group, the difference was larger, but also not signficant. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: We developed a scoring system to predict 1-year survival after radiosurgery for 1-3 brain metastases. This study aimed to validate this system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-six new patients were included in this validation study. Like in the original scoring-system, three factors (age, performance status, extra-cranial metastases) were used. For each factor, 1-year survival rates in % were divided by 10, and the three scoring-points were added for each patient. RESULTS:Patient's scores were 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 or 17 points with 1-year survival rates ranging between 31% and 80%. Two groups, 10-14 and 16-17 points were formed. In the 14-16 points group, 1-year survival was 47% (versus 33% in the preceding study, p=0.060). In the 16-17 points group, 1-year survival rates were 75% versus 77% (p=0.79). CONCLUSION: In the more favorable group, the scoring-system was very reproducible. In the less favorable group, the difference was larger, but also not signficant. Copyright
Authors: Dirk Rades; Stefan Huttenlocher; Liesa Dziggel; Oliver Blanck; Dagmar Hornung; Khoa Trong Mai; Trang Thuy Ngo; Thai Van Pham; Steven Schild Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2015
Authors: Duong Anh Vuong; Dirk Rades; Albertus T C van Eck; Gerhard A Horstmann; Reinhard Busse Journal: Clin Neurol Neurosurg Date: 2012-06-16 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Paul D Brown; Kurt Jaeckle; Karla V Ballman; Elana Farace; Jane H Cerhan; S Keith Anderson; Xiomara W Carrero; Fred G Barker; Richard Deming; Stuart H Burri; Cynthia Ménard; Caroline Chung; Volker W Stieber; Bruce E Pollock; Evanthia Galanis; Jan C Buckner; Anthony L Asher Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Liesa Dziggel; Markus Dahlke; Stefan Janssen; Dagmar Hornung; Oliver Blanck; Mai Trong Khoa; Steven E Schild; Dirk Rades Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Eric L Chang; Jeffrey S Wefel; Kenneth R Hess; Pamela K Allen; Frederick F Lang; David G Kornguth; Rebecca B Arbuckle; J Michael Swint; Almon S Shiu; Moshe H Maor; Christina A Meyers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 41.316