Cecilia Jiang1, Troy J Kleber1, Jeffrey M Switchenko2, Mohammad K Khan3,4. 1. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Winship Cancer Institute, 1365 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30345, USA. drkhurram2000@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. drkhurram2000@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of melanoma with brain metastases (MBM) is increasingly complex, especially given recent improvements in targeted agents, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is a longstanding radiotherapy technique for which reported patient outcomes and experiences are limited. We sought to report our institutional outcomes for MBM patients receiving WBRT and assess whether other clinical factors impact prognosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single institution database was performed. Patients diagnosed with MBM from 2000 to 2018 treated with WBRT, with or without other systemic treatments, were included. Post-WBRT brain MRI scans were assessed at timed intervals for radiographic response. Clinical and treatment variables associated with overall survival (OS), distant failure-free survival (DFFS), local failure-free survival (LFFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. Data on radiation-induced side effects, including radionecrosis, hemorrhage, and memory deficits, was also captured. RESULTS: 63 patients with MBM were ultimately included in our study. 69% of patients had 5 or more brain metastases at the time of WBRT, and 68% had extracranial disease. The median dose of WBRT was 30 Gy over 10 fractions. Median follow-up was 4.0 months. Patients receiving WBRT had a median OS of 7.0 months, median PFS of 2.2 months, median DFFS of 6.1 months, and median LFFS of 4.9 months. Performance status correlated with OS on both univariate and multivariable analysis. BRAF inhibitor was the only systemic therapy to significantly impact OS on univariate analysis (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.79, p = 0.019), and this effect extended to multivariable analysis as well. Post-WBRT intralesional hemorrhage decreased DFFS on both univariate and multivariable analysis. Of patients with post-treatment brain scans available, there was a 16% rate of radionecrosis, 32% rate of hemorrhage, and 19% rate of memory deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for MBM patients receiving WBRT indicate that WBRT remains an effective treatment strategy to control intracranial disease. Treatment-related toxicities such as intralesional hemorrhage, necrosis, or neurocognitive side effects are limited. With continued innovations in WBRT technique and systemic therapy development, MBM outcomes may continue to improve. Further trials should evaluate the role of WBRT in the modern context.
BACKGROUND: The management of melanoma with brain metastases (MBM) is increasingly complex, especially given recent improvements in targeted agents, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is a longstanding radiotherapy technique for which reported patient outcomes and experiences are limited. We sought to report our institutional outcomes for MBM patients receiving WBRT and assess whether other clinical factors impact prognosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single institution database was performed. Patients diagnosed with MBM from 2000 to 2018 treated with WBRT, with or without other systemic treatments, were included. Post-WBRT brain MRI scans were assessed at timed intervals for radiographic response. Clinical and treatment variables associated with overall survival (OS), distant failure-free survival (DFFS), local failure-free survival (LFFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. Data on radiation-induced side effects, including radionecrosis, hemorrhage, and memory deficits, was also captured. RESULTS: 63 patients with MBM were ultimately included in our study. 69% of patients had 5 or more brain metastases at the time of WBRT, and 68% had extracranial disease. The median dose of WBRT was 30 Gy over 10 fractions. Median follow-up was 4.0 months. Patients receiving WBRT had a median OS of 7.0 months, median PFS of 2.2 months, median DFFS of 6.1 months, and median LFFS of 4.9 months. Performance status correlated with OS on both univariate and multivariable analysis. BRAF inhibitor was the only systemic therapy to significantly impact OS on univariate analysis (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.79, p = 0.019), and this effect extended to multivariable analysis as well. Post-WBRT intralesional hemorrhage decreased DFFS on both univariate and multivariable analysis. Of patients with post-treatment brain scans available, there was a 16% rate of radionecrosis, 32% rate of hemorrhage, and 19% rate of memory deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for MBM patients receiving WBRT indicate that WBRT remains an effective treatment strategy to control intracranial disease. Treatment-related toxicities such as intralesional hemorrhage, necrosis, or neurocognitive side effects are limited. With continued innovations in WBRT technique and systemic therapy development, MBM outcomes may continue to improve. Further trials should evaluate the role of WBRT in the modern context.
Authors: Ricarda Rauschenberg; Johannes Bruns; Julia Brütting; Dirk Daubner; Fabian Lohaus; Lisa Zimmer; Andrea Forschner; Daniel Zips; Jessica C Hassel; Carola Berking; Katharina C Kaehler; Jochen Utikal; Ralf Gutzmer; Patrik Terheyden; Frank Meiss; David Rafei-Shamsabadi; Felix Kiecker; Dirk Debus; Evelyn Dabrowski; Andreas Arnold; Marlene Garzarolli; Marvin Kuske; Stefan Beissert; Steffen Löck; Jennifer Linn; Esther G C Troost; Friedegund Meier Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Norbert Kased; David Roberge; Zhiyuan Xu; Ryan Shanley; Xianghua Luo; Penny K Sneed; Samuel T Chao; Robert J Weil; John Suh; Amit Bhatt; Ashley W Jensen; Paul D Brown; Helen A Shih; John Kirkpatrick; Laurie E Gaspar; John B Fiveash; Veronica Chiang; Jonathan P S Knisely; Christina Maria Sperduto; Nancy Lin; Minesh Mehta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Wen Jiang; Paul D Brown; Steve Braunstein; Penny Sneed; Daniel A Wattson; Helen A Shih; Ananta Bangdiwala; Ryan Shanley; Natalie A Lockney; Kathryn Beal; Emil Lou; Thomas Amatruda; William A Sperduto; John P Kirkpatrick; Norman Yeh; Laurie E Gaspar; Jason K Molitoris; Laura Masucci; David Roberge; James Yu; Veronica Chiang; Minesh Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: L Gaspar; C Scott; M Rotman; S Asbell; T Phillips; T Wasserman; W G McKenna; R Byhardt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel M Trifiletti; Jason P Sheehan; Surbhi Grover; Sunil W Dutta; Chad G Rusthoven; Brian D Kavanagh; Arjun Sahgal; Timothy N Showalter Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: M Hecht; L Zimmer; C Loquai; C Weishaupt; R Gutzmer; B Schuster; S Gleisner; B Schulze; S M Goldinger; C Berking; A Forschner; P Clemens; G Grabenbauer; T Müller-Brenne; J Bauch; H T Eich; S Grabbe; D Schadendorf; G Schuler; P Keikavoussi; S Semrau; R Fietkau; L V Distel; L Heinzerling Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Brian J Blonigen; Ryan D Steinmetz; Linda Levin; Michael A Lamba; Ronald E Warnick; John C Breneman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Zachary A Kohutek; Yoshiya Yamada; Timothy A Chan; Cameron W Brennan; Viviane Tabar; Philip H Gutin; T Jonathan Yang; Marc K Rosenblum; Åse Ballangrud; Robert J Young; Zhigang Zhang; Kathryn Beal Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Christina A Meyers; Jennifer A Smith; Andrea Bezjak; Minesh P Mehta; James Liebmann; Tim Illidge; Ian Kunkler; Jean-Michel Caudrelier; Peter D Eisenberg; Jacobus Meerwaldt; Ross Siemers; Christian Carrie; Laurie E Gaspar; Walter Curran; See-Chun Phan; Richard A Miller; Markus F Renschler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martin Salzmann; Klaus Hess; Kristin Lang; Alexander H Enk; Berit Jordan; Jessica C Hassel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 4.033