• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Dec 2012

    Validity of three recently proposed prognostic grading indexes for breast cancer patients with radiosurgically treated brain metastases.

    • Masaaki Yamamoto, Takuya Kawabe, Yoshinori Higuchi, Yasunori Sato, Bierta E Barfod, Hidetoshi Kasuya, and Yoichi Urakawa.
    • Katsuta Hospital Mito GammaHouse, Hitachi-naka, Japan. BCD06275@nifty.com
    • Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012 Dec 1; 84 (5): 1110-5.

    PurposeWe tested the validity of 3 recently proposed prognostic indexes for breast cancer patients with brain metastases (METs) treated radiosurgically. The 3 indexes are Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA), New Breast Cancer (NBC)-Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA), and our index, sub-classification of RPA class II patients into 3 sub-classes (RPA class II-a, II-b and II-c) based on Karnofsky performance status, tumor number, original tumor status, and non-brain METs.Methods And MaterialsThis was an institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study using our database of 269 consecutive female breast cancer patients (mean age, 55 years; range, 26-86 years) who underwent Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) alone, without whole-brain radiation therapy, for brain METs during the 15-year period between 1996 and 2011. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the absolute risk of each event.ResultsKaplan-Meier plots of our patient series showed statistically significant survival differences among patients stratified into 3, 4, or 5 groups based on the 3 systems (P<.001). However, the mean survival time (MST) differences between some pairs of groups failed to reach statistical significance with all 3 systems. Thus, we attempted to regrade our 269 breast cancer patients into 3 groups by modifying our aforementioned index along with the original RPA class I and III, (ie, RPA I+II-a, II-b, and II-c+III). There were statistically significant MST differences among these 3 groups without overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between any 2 pairs of groups: 18.4 (95% CI = 14.0-29.5) months in I+II-a, 9.2 in II-b (95% CI = 6.8-12.9, P<.001 vs I+II-a) and 5.0 in II-c+III (95% CI = 4.2-6.8, P<.001 vs II-b).ConclusionsAs none of the new grading systems, DS-GPS, BC-RPA and our system, was applicable to our set of radiosurgically treated patients for comparing survivals after GKRS, we slightly modified our system for breast cancer patients.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…