A simple score to estimate the likelihood of pseudoprogression vs. recurrence following stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: The Bergen Criteria

Pseudoprogression versus true progression in glioblastoma: what neurosurgeons need to know

Management of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) is complex and involves implementing standard therapies including resection, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, as well as novel immunotherapies and targeted small-molecule inhibitors through clinical trials and precision medicine approaches. As treatments have advanced, the radiological and clinical assessment of patients with GBM has become even more challenging and nuanced. Advances in spatial resolution and both anatomical and physiological information that can be derived from MRI have greatly improved the noninvasive assessment of GBM before, during, and after therapy. Identification of pseudoprogression (PsP), defined as changes concerning for tumor progression that are, in fact, transient and related to treatment response, is critical for successful patient management. These temporary changes can produce new clinical symptoms due to mass effect and edema. Differentiating this entity from true tumor progression is a major decision point in the patient's management and prognosis. Providers may choose to start an alternative therapy, transition to a clinical trial, consider repeat resection, or continue with the current therapy in hopes of resolution. In this review, the authors describe the invasive and noninvasive techniques neurosurgeons need to be aware of to identify PsP and facilitate surgical decision-making.

Dosimetric and clinical analysis of pseudo-progression versus recurrence after hypo-fractionated radiotherapy for brain metastases

BACKGROUND

The main challenge in follow-up duration of patients with brain metastases after stereotactic radiotherapy is to distinguish between pseudo-progression and tumor recurrence. The objective of this study is to retrospectively analyze the predictive factors.

METHODS

The study included 123 patients with enlarged brain metastases after hypo-fractionated radiotherapy in our center from March 2009 to October 2019, and the baseline clinical features, radiotherapy planning parameters, and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging before and after radiation therapy were analyzed. Logistic regression was performed to compare the differences between groups. Independent risk factors with P < 0.05 and associated with recurrence were used to establish a nomogram prediction model and validated by Bootstrap repeated sampling, which was validated in an internal cohort (n = 23) from October 2019 to December 2021.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 68.4 months (range, 8.9-146.2 months). A total of 76 (61.8%) patients were evaluated as pseudo-progression, 47 patients (38.2%) were evaluated as tumor recurrence. The median time to pseudo-progression and tumor recurrence were 18.3 months (quartile range, 9.4-27.8 months) and 12.9 months (quartile range, 8.7-19.6 months) respectively. Variables associated with tumor recurrence included: gross tumor volume ≥ 6 cc, biological effective dose < 60 Gy, target coverage < 96% and no targeted therapy. The area under curve values were 0.730 and 0.967 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Thirty-one patients received salvage therapy in the tumor recurrence group. The survival time in pseudo-progression and tumor recurrence groups were 66.3 months (95% CI 56.8-75.9 months) and 39.6 months (95% CI 29.2-50.0 months, respectively; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and dosimetry features of hypo-fractionated radiation therapy based on enhanced brain magnetic resonance can help distinguish pseudo-progression from tumor recurrence after hypo-fractionated radiotherapy for brain metastases. Gross tumor volume, biological effective dose, target coverage, and having received targeted therapy or not were factors associated with the occurrence of tumor recurrence, and the individual risk could be estimated by the nomogram effectively.

Volumetric Response of Limited Brain Metastatic Disease to Focal Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy

Background: This is a retrospective study aimed at assessing the volumetric response, morbidity and failure rates of hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for definitive focal management of limited brain metastasis. Methods: Patients managed with HFRT for unresected limited metastatic (≤10 lesions) brain disease were entered into an ethics-approved database. Included patients had been deemed unsuitable for surgical resection, and lesions managed with prior radiation therapy were excluded. HFRT was delivered using IMRT or VMAT with 25 Gy or 30 Gy in five fractions. Individual lesions had volumetric assessment performed at three timepoints. The primary endpoint was the change of volume from baseline (GTV0) to one month post-HFRT (GTV1) and to seven months post-HFRT (GTV7). Secondary endpoints were local failure, survival and rates of radiation necrosis. Results: One hundred and twenty-four patients with 233 lesions were managed with HFRT. Median follow-up was 23.5 months with 32 (25.8%) patients alive at censure. Median overall survival was 7.3 months with 36.3% survival at 12 months. Superior survival was predicted by smaller GTV0 (p = 0.003) and increased percentage of volumetric response (p < 0.001). Systemic therapy was delivered to 81.5% of patients. At one month post-HFRT, 206 metastases (88.4%) were available for assessment and at seven months post-HFRT, 118 metastases (50.6%) were available. Median metastasis volume at GTV0 was 1.6 cm³ (range: 0.1–19.1). At GTV1 and GTV7, this reduced to 0.7 cm³ (p < 0.001) and 0.3 cm³ (p < 0.001), respectively, correlating to percentage reductions of 54.9% and 83.3%. No significant predictors of volumetric response following HFRT were identified. Local failure was identified in 4.3% of lesions and radiation necrosis in 3.9%. Conclusion: HFRT is an effective therapy for limited metastatic disease in the brain to maximise initial volumetric response whilst minimising toxicity.