Brandon E Turner1, Roshan S Prabhu2, Stuart H Burri2, Paul D Brown3, Erqi L Pollom1, Michael T Milano4, Stephanie E Weiss5, Michael Iv6, Nancy Fischbein6, Hany Soliman7, Simon S Lo8, Samuel T Chao9, Brett W Cox10, James D Murphy11, Gordon Li12, Melanie Hayden Gephart12, Seema Nagpal13, Banu Atalar14, Melissa Azoulay15, Reena Thomas13, Gayle Tillman16, Ben Y Durkee17, Jennifer L Shah18, Scott G Soltys19. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California. 2. Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, North Carolina; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 5. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 10. Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York, New York. 11. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. 12. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 13. Department of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 15. Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada. 16. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 17. Department of Radiation Oncology, SwedishAmerican, Rockford, Illinois. 18. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 19. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California. Electronic address: sgsoltys@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For brain metastases, surgical resection with postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery is an emerging standard of care. Postoperative cavity stereotactic radiosurgery is associated with a specific, underrecognized pattern of intracranial recurrence, herein termed nodular leptomeningeal disease (nLMD), which is distinct from classical leptomeningeal disease. We hypothesized that there is poor consensus regarding the definition of LMD, and that a formal, self-guided training module will improve interrater reliability (IRR) and validity in diagnosing LMD. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two physicians at 16 institutions, including 15 physicians with central nervous system expertise, completed a 2-phase survey that included magnetic resonance imaging and treatment information for 30 patients. In the "pretraining" phase, physicians labeled cases using 3 patterns of recurrence commonly reported in prospective studies: local recurrence (LR), distant parenchymal recurrence (DR), and LMD. After a self-directed training module, participating physicians completed the "posttraining" phase and relabeled the 30 cases using the 4 following labels: LR, DR, classical leptomeningeal disease, and nLMD. RESULTS: IRR increased 34% after training (Fleiss' Kappa K = 0.41 to K = 0.55, P < .001). IRR increased most among non-central nervous system specialists (+58%, P < .001). Before training, IRR was lowest for LMD (K = 0.33). After training, IRR increased across all recurrence subgroups and increased most for LMD (+67%). After training, ≥27% of cases initially labeled LR or DR were later recognized as nLMD. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the large degree of inconsistency among clinicians in recognizing nLMD. Our findings demonstrate that a brief self-guided training module distinguishing nLMD can significantly improve IRR across all patterns of recurrence, and particularly in nLMD. To optimize outcomes reporting, prospective trials in brain metastases should incorporate central imaging review and investigator training.
PURPOSE: For brain metastases, surgical resection with postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery is an emerging standard of care. Postoperative cavity stereotactic radiosurgery is associated with a specific, underrecognized pattern of intracranial recurrence, herein termed nodular leptomeningeal disease (nLMD), which is distinct from classical leptomeningeal disease. We hypothesized that there is poor consensus regarding the definition of LMD, and that a formal, self-guided training module will improve interrater reliability (IRR) and validity in diagnosing LMD. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two physicians at 16 institutions, including 15 physicians with central nervous system expertise, completed a 2-phase survey that included magnetic resonance imaging and treatment information for 30 patients. In the "pretraining" phase, physicians labeled cases using 3 patterns of recurrence commonly reported in prospective studies: local recurrence (LR), distant parenchymal recurrence (DR), and LMD. After a self-directed training module, participating physicians completed the "posttraining" phase and relabeled the 30 cases using the 4 following labels: LR, DR, classical leptomeningeal disease, and nLMD. RESULTS: IRR increased 34% after training (Fleiss' Kappa K = 0.41 to K = 0.55, P < .001). IRR increased most among non-central nervous system specialists (+58%, P < .001). Before training, IRR was lowest for LMD (K = 0.33). After training, IRR increased across all recurrence subgroups and increased most for LMD (+67%). After training, ≥27% of cases initially labeled LR or DR were later recognized as nLMD. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the large degree of inconsistency among clinicians in recognizing nLMD. Our findings demonstrate that a brief self-guided training module distinguishing nLMD can significantly improve IRR across all patterns of recurrence, and particularly in nLMD. To optimize outcomes reporting, prospective trials in brain metastases should incorporate central imaging review and investigator training.
Authors: Banu Atalar; Leslie A Modlin; Clara Y H Choi; John R Adler; Iris C Gibbs; Steven D Chang; Griffith R Harsh; Gordon Li; Seema Nagpal; Alexandra Hanlon; Scott G Soltys Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Penny K Sneed; Joe Mendez; Johanna G M Vemer-van den Hoek; Zachary A Seymour; Lijun Ma; Annette M Molinaro; Shannon E Fogh; Jean L Nakamura; Michael W McDermott Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: E Le Rhun; M Weller; D Brandsma; M Van den Bent; E de Azambuja; R Henriksson; T Boulanger; S Peters; C Watts; W Wick; P Wesseling; R Rudà; M Preusser Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Scott G Soltys; John R Adler; John D Lipani; Paul S Jackson; Clara Y H Choi; Putipun Puataweepong; Scarlett White; Iris C Gibbs; Steven D Chang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul M Foreman; Bradford E Jackson; Karan P Singh; Andrew K Romeo; Barton L Guthrie; Winfield S Fisher; Kristen O Riley; James M Markert; Christopher D Willey; Markus Bredel; John B Fiveash Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Kirtesh R Patel; Stuart H Burri; Anthony L Asher; Ian R Crocker; Robert W Fraser; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Shravan Kandula; Jim Zhong; Robert H Press; Jeffery J Olson; Nelson M Oyesiku; Scott D Wait; Walter J Curran; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Roshan S Prabhu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Daniel N Cagney; Nayan Lamba; Sumi Sinha; Paul J Catalano; Wenya Linda Bi; Brian M Alexander; Ayal A Aizer Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Timothy K Nguyen; Arjun Sahgal; Jay Detsky; Eshetu G Atenafu; Sten Myrehaug; Chia-Lin Tseng; Zain Husain; Chris Heyn; Pejman Maralani; Mark Ruschin; James Perry; Hany Soliman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Stephen R Lowe; Christopher P Wang; Amanda Brisco; Junmin Whiting; John Arrington; Kamran Ahmed; Michael Yu; Timothy Robinson; Daniel Oliver; Arnold Etame; Nam Tran; Andre Beer Furlan; Solmaz Sahebjam; Sepideh Mokhtari; Yolanda Piña; Robert Macaulay; Peter Forsyth; Michael A Vogelbaum; James K C Liu Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Roshan S Prabhu; Brandon E Turner; Anthony L Asher; Samuel R Marcrom; John B Fiveash; Paul M Foreman; Robert H Press; Zachary S Buchwald; Walter J Curran; Kirtesh R Patel; William G Breen; Paul D Brown; Krishan R Jethwa; Inga S Grills; Jessica D Arden; Lauren M Foster; Matthew A Manning; Zachary K Vaslow; Stuart H Burri; Scott G Soltys Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-01-08