| Literature DB >> 30360020 |
Hyera Kim1, Kang Kook Lee1, Mi Hwa Heo1, Jin Young Kim1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The occurrence of brain metastasis (BM) has increased due to improved overall survival (OS) in uterine cervical cancer. However, research about prognostic factors and therapeutic guidelines for BM in uterine cervical cancer remains scarce due to the rarity of BM in this type of cancer. The present study evaluated the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors influencing OS in patients with BM from uterine cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Brain metastasis; Prognosis; Uterine cervical neoplasms
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30360020 PMCID: PMC6823565 DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2018.051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Intern Med ISSN: 1226-3303 Impact factor: 2.884
Definition of the graded prognostic assessment for patients with brain metastasis
| Prognostic factors | Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | |
| Age | ≥ 60 | 50–59 | < 50 |
| KPS | < 70 | 70–80 | 90–100 |
| No. of BM | > 3 | 2–3 | 1 |
| Extracranial metastasis | Present | - | None |
KPS, Karnofsky performance status; BM, brain metastasis.
Clinical characteristics of patients with brain metastasis of uterine cervical cancer
| No. | Age at BM, yr | Interval to BM, mon | OS after BM, mon | Patient status | KPS score at BM | Histology | Initial FIGO stage | CTx regimen before BM | Controlled primary state | Extracranial meta | No. of BM | Local Tx after BM | CTx after BM | RPA | GPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 51 | 70 | 18 | Dead | 50 | SQ | IIB | 2 | Yes | Yes | 5 | No | Yes | 3 | 0.5 |
| 2 | 45 | 93 | 27 | Dead | 60 | SQ | IB2 | 1 | No | Yes | 1 | RT | Yes | 3 | 2 |
| 3 | 75 | 63 | 4 | Dead | 50 | SQ | IIB | 0 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No | Yes | 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 34 | 14 | 1 | Dead | 50 | SC | IB2 | 3 | No | Yes | > 10 | RT | No | 3 | 1 |
| 5 | 53 | 38 | 2 | Dead | 60 | SQ | IIB | 5 | Yes | Yes | 4 | RT | No | 3 | 0.5 |
| 6 | 58 | 45 | 11 | Dead | 80 | SQ | IIB | 1 | Yes | Yes | 1 | OP + RT | Yes | 2 | 2 |
| 7 | 69 | 166 | 10 | Dead | 20 | SQ | IIB | 1 | Yes | Yes | 3 | RT | No | 3 | 0.5 |
| 8 | 45 | 17 | 9 | Dead | 80 | SC | IIA2 | 2 | Yes | No | 1 | OP + RT | Yes | 1 | 3.5 |
| 9 | 53 | 9 | 23 | Dead | 80 | SC | IVB | 2 | Yes | Yes | 1 | OP + RT | Yes | 2 | 2 |
| 10 | 55 | 16 | 0 | Dead | 50 | AD | IB1 | 3 | No | Yes | > 10 | No | No | 3 | 0.5 |
| 11 | 31 | 19 | 1 | Dead | 20 | AS | IIB | 1 | Yes | Yes | 1 | No | No | 3 | 2 |
| 12 | 50 | 10 | 73 | Alive | 70 | SC | IIB | 1 | Yes | No | 1 | OP + RT | Yes | 1 | 3 |
| 13 | 71 | 15 | 15 | Dead | 80 | AD | IB1 | 1 | Yes | Yes | 1 | OP + RT | Yes | 2 | 1.5 |
| 14 | 58 | 25 | 6 | FU loss | 60 | CS | IVB | 2 | Yes | Yes | 1 | OP + RT | Yes | 3 | 1.5 |
| 15 | 55 | 27 | 6 | Dead | 70 | AD | IIB | 3 | Yes | Yes | 3 | RT | Yes | 2 | 1.5 |
| 16 | 40 | 19 | 8 | Alive | 80 | SQ | IVB | 3 | No | Yes | > 10 | RT | Yes | 2 | 1.5 |
| 17 | 53 | 23 | 4 | Alive | 80 | SQ | IIB | 2 | Yes | No | 2 | RT | Yes | 1 | 2.5 |
| 18 | 58 | 6 | 2 | Dead | 80 | SQ | IVB | 1 | Yes | Yes | 1 | RT | No | 2 | 2 |
| 19 | 74 | 9 | 5 | FU loss | 70 | SQ | IIB | 1 | Yes | Yes | 1 | RT | Yes | 2 | 1.5 |
BM, brain metastasis; OS, overall survival; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; CTx, chemotherapy; Tx, therapy; PRA, recursive partitioning analysis; GPA, graded prognostic assessment; SQ, squamous cell carcinoma; RT, radiotherapy; SC, small cell carcinoma; OP, surgery; AD, adenocarcinoma; AS, adenosquamous cell carcinoma; FU, follow-up; CS, carcinosarcoma.
Figure 1.The Kaplan-Meier survival curve in patients with brain metastasis from uterine cervical cancer. CI, confidence interval.
Figure 2.The Kaplan-Meier survival curves in patients with brain metastasis (BM) from uterine cervical cancer based on prognostic factors influencing the survival time: (A) the Karnofsky performance score (KPS, ≥ 70 vs. < 70), (B) histology (small cell carcinoma [SC] vs. others), (C) the number of chemotherapy (CTx) regimens before BM (≥ 3 vs. < 3), (D) the number of BM (single vs. multiple), (E) treatments for BM (treatment vs. palliative care), (F) CTx after BM (presence vs. absence). H, histology.
Figure 3.The Kaplan-Meier survival curve in patients with brain metastases from uterine cervical cancer based on the local treatment (Tx) modalities. Single therapy, neurosurgery or radiotherapy; double therapy, neurosurgery and radiotherapy.
Figure 4.(A) The Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to the recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class for patients with uterine cervical cancer. (B) The Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to the graded prognostic assessment (GPA) for patients with uterine cervical cancer.