1
|
Knox A, Wang T, Shackleton M, Ameratunga M. Symptomatic brain metastases in melanoma. Exp Dermatol 2024; 33:e15075. [PMID: 38610093 DOI: 10.1111/exd.15075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2024] [Revised: 03/22/2024] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024]
Abstract
Although clinical outcomes in metastatic melanoma have improved in recent years, the morbidity and mortality of symptomatic brain metastases remain challenging. Response rates and survival outcomes of patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are significantly inferior to patients with asymptomatic disease. This review focusses upon the specific challenges associated with the management of symptomatic MBM, discussing current treatment paradigms, obstacles to improving clinical outcomes and directions for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Knox
- Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Tim Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Mark Shackleton
- Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
- School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Malaka Ameratunga
- Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
- School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
McKenzie G, Gaskins J, Rattani A, Oliver A, Southall W, Nakamura F, Yusuf M, Mistry A, Williams B, Woo S. Radiosurgery fractionation and post-treatment hemorrhage development for intact melanoma brain metastases. J Neurooncol 2022; 160:591-599. [DOI: 10.1007/s11060-022-04178-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
3
|
Alvi MA, Asher AL, Michalopoulos GD, Grills IS, Warnick RE, McInerney J, Chiang VL, Attia A, Timmerman R, Chang E, Kavanagh BD, Andrews DW, Walter K, Bydon M, Sheehan JP. Factors associated with progression and mortality among patients undergoing stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial metastasis: results from a national real-world registry. J Neurosurg 2022; 137:985-998. [PMID: 35171833 DOI: 10.3171/2021.10.jns211410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2021] [Accepted: 10/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been increasingly employed in recent years to treat intracranial metastatic lesions. However, there is still a need for optimization of treatment paradigms to provide better local control and prevent progressive intracranial disease. In the current study, the authors utilized a national collaborative registry to investigate the outcomes of patients with intracranial metastatic disease who underwent SRS and to determine factors associated with lesion treatment response, overall progression, and mortality. METHODS The NeuroPoint Alliance SRS registry was queried for all patients with intracranial metastatic lesions undergoing single- or multifraction SRS at participating institutions between 2016 and 2020. The main outcomes of interest included lesion response (lesion-level analysis), progression using Response Assessment for Neuro-Oncology criteria, and mortality (patient-level analysis). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to report time to progression and overall survival, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to investigate factors associated with lesion response, progression, and mortality. RESULTS A total of 501 patients (1447 intracranial metastatic lesions) who underwent SRS and had available follow-up were included in the current analyses. The most common primary tumor was lung cancer (49.5%, n = 248), followed by breast (15.4%, n = 77) and melanoma (12.2%, n = 61). Most patients had a single lesion (44.9%, n = 225), 29.3% (n = 147) had 2 or 3 lesions, and 25.7% (n = 129) had > 3 lesions. The mean sum of baseline measurements of the lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was 35.54 mm (SD 25.94). At follow-up, 671 lesions (46.4%) had a complete response, 631 (43.6%) had a partial response (≥ 30% decrease in longest diameter) or were stable (< 30% decrease but < 20% increase), and 145 (10%) showed progression (> 20% increase in longest diameter). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, melanoma-associated lesions (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.67; p < 0.001) and larger lesion size (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93-0.96; p < 0.001) showed lower odds of lesion regression, while a higher biologically effective dose was associated with higher odds (HR 1.001, 95% CI 1.0001-1.00023; p < 0.001). A total of 237 patients (47.3%) had overall progression (local failure or intracranial progressive disease), with a median time to progression of 10.03 months after the index SRS. Factors found to be associated with increased hazards of progression included male sex (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.108-1.99; p = 0.008), while administration of immunotherapy (before or after SRS) was found to be associated with lower hazards of overall progression (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.460-0.85; p = 0.003). A total of 121 patients (23.95%) died during the follow-up period, with a median survival of 19.4 months from the time of initial SRS. A higher recursive partitioning analysis score (HR 21.3485, 95% CI 1.53202-3.6285; p < 0.001) was found to be associated with higher hazards of mortality, while single-fraction treatment compared with hypofractionated treatment (HR 0.082, 95% CI 0.011-0.61; p = 0.015), administration of immunotherapy (HR 0.385, 95% CI 0.233-0.64; p < 0.001), and presence of single compared with > 3 lesions (HR 0.427, 95% CI 0.187-0.98; p = 0.044) were found to be associated with lower risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS The comparability of results between this study and those of previously published clinical trials affirms the value of multicenter databases with real-world data collected without predetermined research purpose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed Ali Alvi
- 1Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- 2Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Anthony L Asher
- 3Neuroscience Institute, Carolinas Healthcare System and Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Giorgos D Michalopoulos
- 1Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- 2Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Inga S Grills
- 4Department of Neurological Surgery, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Ronald E Warnick
- 5Department of Neurosurgery, The Jewish Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - James McInerney
- 6Department of Neurosurgery, Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Veronica L Chiang
- 7Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Albert Attia
- 8Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Robert Timmerman
- 9Department of Neurological Surgery, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Eric Chang
- 10Department of Radiation Oncology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- 11Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - David W Andrews
- 12Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Kevin Walter
- 13Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York; and
| | - Mohamad Bydon
- 1Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- 2Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Jason P Sheehan
- 14Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Eggen AC, Wind TT, Bosma I, Kramer MCA, van Laar PJ, van der Weide HL, Hospers GAP, Jalving M. Value of screening and follow-up brain MRI scans in patients with metastatic melanoma. Cancer Med 2021; 10:8395-8404. [PMID: 34741440 PMCID: PMC8633235 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2021] [Revised: 09/09/2021] [Accepted: 09/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Novel treatments make long‐term survival possible for subsets of patients with melanoma brain metastases. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may aid in early detection of brain metastases and inform treatment decisions. This study aimed to determine the impact of screening MRI scans in patients with metastatic melanoma and follow‐up MRI scans in patients with melanoma brain metastases. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma or melanoma brain metastases between June 2015 and January 2018. The impact of screening MRI scans was evaluated in the first 2 years after metastatic melanoma diagnosis. The impact of follow‐up MRI scans was examined in the first year after brain metastases diagnosis. The number of MRI scans, scan indications, scan outcomes, and changes in treatment strategy were analyzed. Results In total, 116 patients had no brain metastases at the time of the metastatic melanoma diagnosis. Twenty‐eight of these patients (24%) were subsequently diagnosed with brain metastases. Screening MRI scans detected the brain metastases in 11/28 patients (39%), of which 8 were asymptomatic at diagnosis. In the 96 patients with melanoma brain metastases, treatment strategy changed after 75/168 follow‐up MRI scans (45%). In patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the number of treatment changes after follow‐up MRI scans was lower when patients had been treated longer. Conclusion(s) Screening MRI scans aid in early detection of melanoma brain metastases, and follow‐up MRI scans inform treatment strategy. In patients with brain metastases responding to immune checkpoint inhibitors, treatment changes were less frequently observed after follow‐up MRI scans. These results can inform the development of brain imaging protocols for patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor sensitive tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annemarie C Eggen
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Thijs T Wind
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Ingeborg Bosma
- Department of Neurology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Miranda C A Kramer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Jan van Laar
- Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, and Hengelo, Almelo, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Hiska L van der Weide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Geke A P Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Mathilde Jalving
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hamed M, Schäfer N, Bode C, Borger V, Potthoff AL, Eichhorn L, Giordano FA, Güresir E, Heimann M, Ko YD, Landsberg J, Lehmann F, Radbruch A, Scharnböck E, Schaub C, Schwab KS, Weller J, Herrlinger U, Vatter H, Schuss P, Schneider M. Preoperative Metastatic Brain Tumor-Associated Intracerebral Hemorrhage Is Associated With Dismal Prognosis. Front Oncol 2021; 11:699860. [PMID: 34595109 PMCID: PMC8476918 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.699860] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Object Intra-tumoral hemorrhage is considered an imaging characteristic of advanced cancer disease. However, data on the influence of intra-tumoral hemorrhage in patients with brain metastases (BM) remains scarce. We aimed at investigating patients with BM who underwent neurosurgical resection of the metastatic lesion for a potential impact of preoperative hemorrhagic transformation on overall survival (OS). Methods Between 2013 and 2018, 357 patients with BM were surgically treated at the authors’ neuro-oncological center. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were assessed for the occurrence of malignant hemorrhagic transformation. Results 122 of 375 patients (34%) with BM revealed preoperative intra-tumoral hemorrhage. Patients with hemorrhagic transformed BM exhibited a median OS of 5 months compared to 12 months for patients without intra-tumoral hemorrhage. Multivariate analysis revealed preoperative hemorrhagic transformation as an independent and significant predictor for worsened OS. Conclusions The present study identifies preoperative intra-tumoral hemorrhage as an indicator variable for poor prognosis in patients with BM undergoing neurosurgical treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Motaz Hamed
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Niklas Schäfer
- Division of Clinical Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Christian Bode
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Valeri Borger
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Anna-Laura Potthoff
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Lars Eichhorn
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Frank A Giordano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Erdem Güresir
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Muriel Heimann
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Yon-Dschun Ko
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, Johanniter Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Jennifer Landsberg
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Felix Lehmann
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Alexander Radbruch
- Department of Neuroradiology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Elisa Scharnböck
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Christina Schaub
- Division of Clinical Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Katjana S Schwab
- Department of Internal Medicine III, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Johannes Weller
- Division of Clinical Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Ulrich Herrlinger
- Division of Clinical Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Hartmut Vatter
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Patrick Schuss
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Matthias Schneider
- Department of Neurosurgery, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wilkes JG, Patel A, McClure E, Pina Y, Zager JS. Developments in therapy for brain metastases in melanoma patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2021; 22:1443-1453. [PMID: 33688795 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2021.1900117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Cutaneous melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. While cytotoxic agents, interferon, or interleukin-2, have been used with some success in extracranial disease, limited efficacy is demonstrated in MBM. The rare patient with long-term survival presented with limited intracranial disease amenable to surgery or radiation therapy. However, the development of targeted therapy and immunotherapy over the last decade has significantly improved overall survival in this formerly devastating presentation of metastatic melanoma.Areas covered: This article reviews the mechanism of brain metastasis, challenges with treating the central nervous system, historical treatment of MBM, and outcomes in clinical trials with targeted therapy and immunotherapy.Expert opinion: The MBM patient population now, more than ever, requires a multidisciplinary approach with surgery, radiation therapy, and the use of newer systemic therapies such as immunotherapy agents and targeted therapy agents. MBM has traditionally been excluded from clinical trials for systemic therapy due to poor survival. However, recent data show overall survival rates have significantly improved, supporting the need for inclusion of MBM patients in systemic therapy clinical trials. Understanding the mechanisms of therapeutic activity in the brain, resistance mechanisms, and the appropriate multi-modality treatment approach requires further investigation. Nevertheless, these therapies continue to give some hope to patients with historically poor survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin G Wilkes
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Ayushi Patel
- University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Erin McClure
- University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Yolanda Pina
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jonathan S Zager
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Khan M, Zheng T, Zhao Z, Arooj S, Liao G. Efficacy of BRAF Inhibitors in Combination With Stereotactic Radiosurgery for the Treatment of Melanoma Brain Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Oncol 2021; 10:586029. [PMID: 33692938 PMCID: PMC7937920 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.586029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2020] [Accepted: 12/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background BRAF inhibitors have improved the outcome for patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma and have shown intracranial responses in melanoma brain metastases. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is being used as a local treatment for melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) with better local control and survival. We searched for studies comparing the combination of two treatments with SRS alone to detect any clinical evidence of synergism. Materials and Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane library were searched until May 2020 for studies with desired comparative outcomes. Outcomes of interest that were obtained for meta-analysis included survival as the primary, and local control as the secondary outcome. Results A total of eight studies involving 976 patients with MBM were selected. Survival was significantly improved for patients receiving BRAF inhibitor plus SRS in comparison to SRS alone as assessed from the time of SRS induction (SRS survival: hazard ratio [HR] 0.67 [0.58–0.79], p <0.00001), from the time of brain metastasis diagnosis (BM survival: HR 0.65 [0.54, 0.78], p < 0.00001), or from the time of primary diagnosis (PD survival: HR 0.74 [0.57–0.95], p = 0.02). Dual therapy was also associated with improved local control, indicating an additive effect of the two treatments (HR 0.53 [0.31–0.93], p=0.03). Intracranial hemorrhage was higher in patients receiving BRAF inhibitors plus SRS than in those receiving SRS alone (OR, 3.16 [1.43–6.96], p = 0.004). Conclusions BRAF inhibitors in conjunction with SRS as local treatment appear to be efficacious. Local brain control and survival improved in patients with MBM receiving dual therapy. Safety assessment would need to be elucidated further as the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage was increased.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammad Khan
- Department of Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China.,Department of Oncology, First affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| | - Tao Zheng
- Department of Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China
| | - Zhihong Zhao
- Department of Nephrology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, Shenzhen, China
| | - Sumbal Arooj
- Department of Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China.,Department of Biochemistry, University of Sialkot, Sialkot, Pakistan
| | - Guixiang Liao
- Department of Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gogia P, Wallach J, Dhull AK, Bhasin S. Multiple cutaneous and haemorrhagic brain metastases as the sentinel presentation of lung adenocarcinoma. BMJ Case Rep 2020; 13:13/11/e235938. [PMID: 33229473 DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2020-235938] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Skin is a relatively uncommon site of metastasis in lung cancer and is associated with a poor prognosis. Although, lung cancer does not uncommonly metastasise to the brain, haemorrhagic brain metastases are rarely reported. In this report, we present a dramatic presentation of a female smoker with a 3-week history of numerous cutaneous lesions over her body and two episodes of transient memory loss. Work-up demonstrated widely metastatic, poorly differentiated lung adenocarcinoma with haemorrhagic brain metastases. She proceeded with whole brain radiotherapy, but her performance status quickly declined afterwards; she succumbed to her malignancy within 6 weeks of presentation. This case presentation demonstrates that, for patients who present with cutaneous masses, especially those aged more than 60 years, and who have extensive smoking history, metastatic lung cancer should remain on the differential diagnosis. Also, the very poor prognosis of multiple metastases may influence medical and social decisions in the patient's treatment plan.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pooja Gogia
- Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| | - Jonathan Wallach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brooklyn VA Medical Center/SUNY-Downstate, Brooklyn, New York, USA
| | - Anil Kumar Dhull
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India
| | - Sidharth Bhasin
- Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Dumont Lecomte D, Lequesne J, Geffrelot J, Lesueur P, Barraux V, Loiseau C, Lacroix J, Leconte A, Émery É, Thariat J, Stefan D. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for challenging brain metastases using 36 Gy in six fractions. Cancer Radiother 2019; 23:860-866. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2019.06.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2018] [Revised: 06/10/2019] [Accepted: 06/13/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
10
|
van Opijnen MP, Dirven L, Coremans IEM, Taphoorn MJB, Kapiteijn EHW. The impact of current treatment modalities on the outcomes of patients with melanoma brain metastases: A systematic review. Int J Cancer 2019; 146:1479-1489. [PMID: 31583684 PMCID: PMC7004107 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32696] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2019] [Revised: 08/30/2019] [Accepted: 09/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) still have a very poor prognosis. Several treatment modalities have been investigated in an attempt to improve the management of MBM. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of current treatments for MBM on patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes, and to provide treatment recommendations for this patient population. A literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to January 8, 2019. Original articles published since 2010 describing patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes of adult MBM patients treated with clearly defined systemic therapy were included. Information on basic trial demographics, treatment under investigation and outcomes (overall and progression‐free survival, local and distant control and toxicity) were extracted. We identified 96 eligible articles, comprising 95 studies. A large variety of treatment options for MBM were investigated, either used alone or as combined modality therapy. Combined modality therapy was investigated in 71% of the studies and resulted in increased survival and better distant/local control than monotherapy, especially with targeted therapy or immunotherapy. However, neurotoxic side‐effects also occurred more frequently. Timing appeared to be an important determinant, with the best results when radiotherapy was given before or during systemic therapy. Improved tumor control and prolonged survival can be achieved by combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. However, more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are warranted to generate proper evidence that can be used to change the standard of care for patients with MBM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark P van Opijnen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Linda Dirven
- Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Neurology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Ida E M Coremans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Martin J B Taphoorn
- Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Neurology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen H W Kapiteijn
- Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Yang I, Udawatta M, Prashant GN, Lagman C, Bloch O, Jensen R, Sheehan J, Kalkanis S, Warnick R. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Neurosurgical Patients: A Historical Review and Current Perspectives. World Neurosurg 2018; 122:522-531. [PMID: 30399473 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2018] [Revised: 10/24/2018] [Accepted: 10/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
Today, stereotactic radiosurgery is an effective therapy for a variety of intracranial pathology that were treated solely with open neurosurgery in the past. The technique was developed from the combination of therapeutic radiation and stereotactic devices for the precise localization of intracranial targets. Although stereotactic radiosurgery was originally performed as a partnership between neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists, this partnership has weakened in recent years, with some procedures being performed without neurosurgeons. At the same time, neurosurgeons across the United States and Canada have found their stereotactic radiosurgery training during residency inadequate. Although neurosurgeons, residency directors, and department chairs agree that stereotactic radiosurgery education and exposure during neurosurgery training could be improved, a limited number of resources exist for this kind of education. This review describes the history of stereotactic radiosurgery, assesses the state of its use and education today, and provides recommendations for the improvement of neurosurgical education in stereotactic radiosurgery for the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isaac Yang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA; Office of the Patient Experience, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA; UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute (LA BioMed) at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA.
| | - Methma Udawatta
- Department of Neurosurgery, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Giyarpuram N Prashant
- Department of Neurosurgery, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Carlito Lagman
- Department of Neurosurgery, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Orin Bloch
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Randy Jensen
- Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Jason Sheehan
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
| | - Steven Kalkanis
- Department of Neurosurgery, Hermelin Brain Tumor Center, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|