PURPOSE Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility. METHODS A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation ( P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non–small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).

No abstract

Background Breast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). Methods A retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM. Results The overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors—nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17–28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15–19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27–18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30–18 mo, P = 0.08). Conclusions Receptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly. Key Points 1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients. 2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively. 3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment.

Talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) is the first oncolytic viral immunotherapy approved by the FDA, for advanced melanoma consisting of genetically modified herpes simplex type 1 virus which selectively replicates causing tumor lysis, expressing granulocyte macrophage‐colony stimulating factor (GM‐CSF) and activating dendritic cells. Intratumoral injection of TVEC produces objective response in 41% of stage IIB‐IV M1a melanoma. However, clinical response assessment can be problematic due to immune‐related inflammation at established tumor sites. Herein, we report 5 cases of granulomatous dermatitis developing at sites of TVEC injection associated with pathologic complete response in 4 of 5 patients. Over 5 months, TVEC injections were administrated in a median of 20 tumors per patient for 9 median doses prior to biopsy of persistent, indurated nodules. Granulomatous dermatitis with melanophages and melanin pigment incontinence was observed in all samples without evidence of melanoma cells in 4 patients. The fifth patient was rendered melanoma‐free by resection of the 1 nodule out of 4 with persistent tumor. Repetitive administration of TVEC or other oncolytic viral immunotherapies mimicking unresolved infection can produce granulomatous inflammation confounding assessment of the degree of tumor response and need for additional TVEC therapy. Tumor biopsies are encouraged after 4 to 6 months of TVEC administration to differentiate melanoma from granulomatous inflammation. Patients with confirmed granulomatous dermatitis replace continued with remained in remission after treatment discontinuation. Inflammatory nodules typically regress spontaneously.

Patients with lower mediastinal lymphoma (LML) benefit dosimetrically from proton therapy (PT) compared with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The added dosimetric benefit of deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) is unknown; therefore, we evaluated IMRT versus PT and free-breathing (FB) versus DIBH among patients with LML. Methods and Materials: Twenty-one patients with LML underwent 4-dimensional computed tomography and 3 sequential DIBH scans at simulation. Involved-site radiation therapy target volumes and organ-at-risk contours were developed for both DIBH and FB scans. FB-IMRT, DIBH-IMRT, FB-PT, and DIBH-PT plans were generated for each patient for comparison. Results: The median difference in lung volume between the DIBH and FB scans was 1275 mL; the average difference in clinical target volume was 5.7 mL. DIBH-IMRT produced a lower mean lung dose (10.8 vs 11.9 Gy; P < .001) than FB-IMRT, with no difference in mean heart dose (MHD; 16.1 vs 15.0 Gy; P Z .992). Both PT plans produced a significantly lower mean dose to the lung, heart, left ventricle, esophagus, and nontarget body than DIBH-IMRT. DIBH-PT reduced the median MHD by 4.2 Gy (P < .0001); left ventricle dose by 5.1 Gy (P < .0001); and lung V5 by 26% (P < .0001) versus DIBH-IMRT. The 2 PT plans were comparable, with DIBH-PT reducing mean lung dose (7.0 vs 7.7 Gy; P Z .063) and with no difference in MHD (10.3 vs 9.5 Gy; P Z .992). Conclusions: Among patients with LML, DIBH (IMRT or PT) improved lung dosimetry over FB but had little influence on MHD. PT (DIBH and FB) significantly reduced lung, heart, esophagus, and nontarget body dose compared with DIBH IMRT, potentially reducing the risk of late complications.