Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

External validity of two nomograms for predicting distant brain failure after radiosurgery for brain metastases in a bi-institutional independent patient cohort

  • Clinical Study
  • Published:
Journal of Neuro-Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BM) are at increased risk of distant brain failure (DBF). Two nomograms have been recently published to predict individualized risk of DBF after SRS. The goal of this study was to assess the external validity of these nomograms in an independent patient cohort. The records of consecutive patients with BM treated with SRS at Levine Cancer Institute and Emory University between 2005 and 2013 were reviewed. Three validation cohorts were generated based on the specific nomogram or recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) entry criteria: Wake Forest nomogram (n = 281), Canadian nomogram (n = 282), and Canadian RPA (n = 303) validation cohorts. Freedom from DBF at 1-year in the Wake Forest study was 30% compared with 50% in the validation cohort. The validation c-index for both the 6-month and 9-month freedom from DBF Wake Forest nomograms was 0.55, indicating poor discrimination ability, and the goodness-of-fit test for both nomograms was highly significant (p < 0.001), indicating poor calibration. The 1-year actuarial DBF in the Canadian nomogram study was 43.9% compared with 50.9% in the validation cohort. The validation c-index for the Canadian 1-year DBF nomogram was 0.56, and the goodness-of-fit test was also highly significant (p < 0.001). The validation accuracy and c-index of the Canadian RPA classification was 53% and 0.61, respectively. The Wake Forest and Canadian nomograms for predicting risk of DBF after SRS were found to have limited predictive ability in an independent bi-institutional validation cohort. These results reinforce the importance of validating predictive models in independent patient cohorts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aoyama H, Shirato H, Tago M, Nakagawa K, Toyoda T, Hatano K, Kenjyo M, Oya N, Hirota S, Shioura H, Kunieda E, Inomata T, Hayakawa K, Katoh N, Kobashi G (2006) Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 295:2483–2491. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.21.2483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang EL, Wefel JS, Hess KR, Allen PK, Lang FF, Kornguth DG, Arbuckle RB, Swint JM, Shiu AS, Maor MH, Meyers CA (2009) Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 10:1037–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70263-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kocher M, Soffietti R, Abacioglu U, Villa S, Fauchon F, Baumert BG, Fariselli L, Tzuk-Shina T, Kortmann RD, Carrie C, Ben Hassel M, Kouri M, Valeinis E, van den Berge D, Collette S, Collette L, Mueller RP (2011) Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952–26001 study. J Clin Oncol 29:134–141. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.30.1655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown PD, Jaeckle K, Ballman KV, Farace E, Cerhan JH, Anderson SK, Carrero XW, Barker FG 2nd, Deming R, Burri SH, Menard C, Chung C, Stieber VW, Pollock BE, Galanis E, Buckner JC, Asher AL (2016) Effect of radiosurgery alone vs radiosurgery with whole brain radiation therapy on cognitive function in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 316: 401–409 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.9839

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Soffietti R, Kocher M, Abacioglu UM, Villa S, Fauchon F, Baumert BG, Fariselli L, Tzuk-Shina T, Kortmann RD, Carrie C, Ben Hassel M, Kouri M, Valeinis E, van den Berge D, Mueller RP, Tridello G, Collette L, Bottomley A (2013) A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial of adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation in patients with one to three brain metastases from solid tumors after surgical resection or radiosurgery: quality-of-life results. J Clin Oncol 31:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.41.0639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ayala-Peacock DN, Peiffer AM, Lucas JT, Isom S, Kuremsky JG, Urbanic JJ, Bourland JD, Laxton AW, Tatter SB, Shaw EG, Chan MD (2014) A nomogram for predicting distant brain failure in patients treated with gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery without whole brain radiotherapy. Neuro-oncology 16:1283–1288. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nou018

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Rodrigues G, Warner A, Zindler J, Slotman B, Lagerwaard F (2014) A clinical nomogram and recursive partitioning analysis to determine the risk of regional failure after radiosurgery alone for brain metastases. Radiother Oncol 111:52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Altman DG, Royston P (2000) What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 19:453–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 338:b605. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, Riley RD, Hemingway H, Altman DG, Group P (2013) Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med 10:e1001381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001381

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Press RH, Prabhu RS, Nickleach DC, Liu Y, Shu HK, Kandula S, Patel KR, Curran WJ, Crocker I (2015) Novel risk stratification score for predicting early distant brain failure and salvage whole-brain radiotherapy after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Cancer 121:3836–3843. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29590

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Prabhu RS, Dhabaan A, Hall WA, Ogunleye T, Crocker I, Curran WJ, Shu HK (2013) Clinical outcomes for a novel 6 degrees of freedom image guided localization method for frameless radiosurgery for intracranial brain metastases. J Neuro-Oncol 113:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1093-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel KR, Burri SH, Asher AL, Crocker IR, Fraser RW, Zhang C, Chen Z, Kandula S, Zhong J, Press RH, Olson JJ, Oyesiku NM, Wait SD, Curran WJ, Shu HK, Prabhu RS (2016) Comparing preoperative with postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery for resectable brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis. Neurosurgery 79:279–285. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, Dinapoli R, Kline R, Loeffler J, Farnan N (2000) Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90 – 05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:291–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. D’Agostino RB, Nam B-H (2003) Evaluation of the performance of survival analysis models: discrimination and calibration measures. Handbook of Statistics, Elsevier, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  16. Halasz LM, Weeks JC, Neville BA, Taback N, Punglia RS (2013) Use of stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:e109–e116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP (2016) Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation 133:601–609. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Berry SD, Ngo L, Samelson EJ, Kiel DP (2010) Competing risk of death: an important consideration in studies of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 58:783–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolkewitz M, Cooper BS, Bonten MJ, Barnett AG, Schumacher M (2014) Interpreting and comparing risks in the presence of competing events. BMJ 349:g5060. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Roshan S. Prabhu, Scott P. Lankford, Robert J. McCammon, Benjamin J. Moeller, John H. Heinzerling, Carolina E. Fasola & Stuart H. Burri

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University & Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Robert H. Press, Kirtesh R. Patel, Walter J. Curran & Hui-Kuo G. Shu

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Danielle M. Boselli

  4. Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Roshan S. Prabhu, Danielle M. Boselli, Katherine R. Miller, Scott P. Lankford, Robert J. McCammon, Benjamin J. Moeller, John H. Heinzerling, Carolina E. Fasola, Anthony L. Asher, Ashley L. Sumrall & Stuart H. Burri

  5. Carolina Neurosurgical and Spine Associates, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Anthony L. Asher

  6. Department of Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Ashley L. Sumrall

  7. Levine Cancer Institute, 1021 Morehead Medical Drive, Suite 1000, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA

    Roshan S. Prabhu

Authors
  1. Roshan S. Prabhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert H. Press
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danielle M. Boselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katherine R. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott P. Lankford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert J. McCammon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Benjamin J. Moeller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John H. Heinzerling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Carolina E. Fasola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kirtesh R. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Anthony L. Asher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ashley L. Sumrall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Walter J. Curran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Hui-Kuo G. Shu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Stuart H. Burri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roshan S. Prabhu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prabhu, R.S., Press, R.H., Boselli, D.M. et al. External validity of two nomograms for predicting distant brain failure after radiosurgery for brain metastases in a bi-institutional independent patient cohort. J Neurooncol 137, 147–154 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2707-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2707-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation