ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Follow-up and Retreatment of Brain Metastases
Multiple options for retreatment are available, which include whole-brain radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, surgery, chemotherapy, and supportive care. Size, number, timing, location, histology, performance status, and extracranial disease status all need to be carefully considered when choosing a treatment modality. There are no randomized trials examining the retreatment of brain metastases. Repeat whole-brain radiation has been examined in a single-institution experience, showing the potential for clinical responses in selected patients. Local control rates as high as 91% using stereotactic radiosurgery for relapses after whole-brain radiation are reported. Surgery can be indicated in progressive and/or hemorrhagic lesions causing mass effect. The role of chemotherapy in the recurrent setting is limited but some agents may have activity on the basis of experiences on a smaller scale. Supportive care continues to be an important option, especially in those with a poor prognosis. Follow-up for brain metastases patients is discussed, examining the modality, frequency of imaging, and imaging options in differentiating treatment effect from recurrence. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of the current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.
Available from: Naomi Fersht
- "Structured MRI follow-up is however essential to identify disease progression in the brain when treatment options were available. The American College of Radiology recommends 3 monthly MRI in the first instance extending to every 4–6 months
. Each centre providing a brain metastases service should develop a general policy with regard to WBRT and follow-up. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The incidence of oligometastases to the brain in good performance status patients is increasing due to improvements in systemic therapy and MRI screening, but specific management pathways are often lacking.
We established a multi-disciplinary brain metastases clinic with specific referral guidelines and standard follow-up for good prognosis patients with the view that improving the process of care may improve outcomes. We evaluated patient demographic and outcome data for patients first seen between February 2007 and November 2011.
The clinic was feasible to run and referrals were appropriate. 87% of patients referred received a localised therapy during their treatment course. 114 patients were seen and patient numbers increased during the 5 years that the clinic has been running as relationships between clinicians were developed. Median follow-up for those still alive was 23.1 months (6.1-79.1 months). Primary treatments were: surgery alone 52%, surgery plus whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) 9%, radiosurgery 14%, WBRT alone 23%, supportive care 2%. 43% received subsequent treatment for brain metastases. 25%, 11% and 15% respectively developed local neurological progression only, new brain metastases only or both. Median overall survival following brain metastases diagnosis was 16.0 months (range 1--79.1 months). Breast (32%) and NSCLC (26%) were the most common primary tumours with median survivals of 26 and 16.9 months respectively (HR 0.6, p=0.07). Overall one year survival was 55% and two year survival 31.5%. 85 patients died of whom 37 (44%) had a neurological death.
Careful patient selection and multi-disciplinary management identifies a subset of patients with oligometastatic brain disease who benefit from aggressive local treatment. A dedicated joint neurosurgical/ neuro-oncology clinic for such patients is feasible and effective. It also offers the opportunity to better define management strategies and further research in this field. Consideration should be given to defining specific management pathways for these patients within general oncology practice.
Radiation Oncology 06/2013; 8(1):156. DOI:10.1186/1748-717X-8-156 · 2.55 Impact Factor
Available from: Geoff P Delaney
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Radiotherapy utilization rates for breast carcinoma vary widely, both within and between countries. Current estimates of the proportion of patients with carcinoma who optimally should receive radiotherapy are based either on expert opinion or on the measurement of actual utilization rates, and not on the best scientific evidence.
To develop an evidence-based benchmark for radiotherapy utilization in patients with breast carcinoma, the authors undertook a systematic review of treatment guidelines on the use of radiotherapy for breast carcinoma. A decision tree was constructed, and the proportions of patients with clinical features that lead to a decision for radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiological data. This ideal utilization rate was compared with the utilization rates of radiotherapy over the last decade for breast carcinoma in Australia and internationally.
The proportion of patients with breast carcinoma in whom radiotherapy would be recommended according to the best available evidence was calculated at 83% (95% confidence interval, 82-85%) of all patients with breast carcinoma. A review of actual radiotherapy utilization rates for breast carcinoma revealed that, in clinical practice, actual utilization rates varied between 24% and 71%.
A substantial difference was found between the recommended optimal utilization of radiotherapy based on evidence and the actual rates reported in clinical practice. The reasons for these differences need to be examined, and a plan for addressing the suboptimal use of radiotherapy needs to be implemented. Cancer 2003.
Cancer 11/2003; 98(9):1977-86. DOI:10.1002/cncr.11740 · 4.89 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Most patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with advanced cancer. These guidelines only include information about stage IV NSCLC. Patients with widespread metastatic disease (stage IV) are candidates for systemic therapy, clinical trials, and/or palliative treatment. The goal is to identify patients with metastatic disease before initiating aggressive treatment, thus sparing these patients from unnecessary futile treatment. If metastatic disease is discovered during surgery, then extensive surgery is often aborted. Decisions about treatment should be based on multidisciplinary discussion.
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 10/2012; 10(10):1236-1271. · 4.18 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.