Cargando…
41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS
BACKGROUND: The EANO ESMO guidelines have proposed a classification of leptomeningeal metastases (LM) based on clinical (typical/atypical), cytological (positive/negative/equivocal) and MRI (A linear, B nodular, C linear and nodular, D normal or hydrocephalus only) presentation. Type I LM is defined...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7401337/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa073.029 |
_version_ | 1783566541709639680 |
---|---|
author | Le Rhun, Emilie Devos, Patrick Weller, Johannes Seystahl, Katharina Mo, Francesca Compter, Annette Sophie Berghoff, Anna Jongen, Joost Wolpert, Fabian Rudà, Roberta Brandsma, Dieta van den Bent, Martin Preusse, Matthias Herrlinger, Ulrich Weller, Michael |
author_facet | Le Rhun, Emilie Devos, Patrick Weller, Johannes Seystahl, Katharina Mo, Francesca Compter, Annette Sophie Berghoff, Anna Jongen, Joost Wolpert, Fabian Rudà, Roberta Brandsma, Dieta van den Bent, Martin Preusse, Matthias Herrlinger, Ulrich Weller, Michael |
author_sort | Le Rhun, Emilie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The EANO ESMO guidelines have proposed a classification of leptomeningeal metastases (LM) based on clinical (typical/atypical), cytological (positive/negative/equivocal) and MRI (A linear, B nodular, C linear and nodular, D normal or hydrocephalus only) presentation. Type I LM is defined by the presence of tumor cells in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (confirmed LM) whereas type II LM is defined by typical clinical and MRI signs (probable or possible LM). Here we explored the clinical utility of these EANO ESMO LM subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assembled data from 254 patients with newly diagnosed LM from different solid tumors, including as main primary tumors breast cancer (n=98, 45%), lung cancer (n=65, 25.5%) and melanoma (n=51, 13.5%). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Log-rank test. RESULTS: Median age at LM diagnosis was 56.5 years (range 20–82 years). Typical clinical LM symptoms or signs were noted in 225 patients (88.5%); only 13 patients (5%) were clinically asymptomatic. The most common MRI subtype was A seen in 117 patients (46%). Types B (n=33, 13%), C (n=54, 21%) and D (n=50, 19.5%) were less common. Tumor cells were observed in the CSF in 186 patients (73%) whereas the CSF was equivocal in 24 (9.5%) and negative in 44 (17.5%) patients. Patients with confirmed LM had inferior outcome than patients with probable or possible LM (p=0.0063). Type I patients had inferior outcome than type II patients (p=0.0019). Nodular disease was a negative prognostic factor in type II LM, but not in type I LM (p=0.0138). CONCLUSION: The presence of tumor cells in the CSF appears to have a greater prognostic role than the neuroimaging presentation. EANO ESMO LM subtypes are highly prognostic and should be considered in the design of clinical trials. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7401337 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74013372020-08-06 41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS Le Rhun, Emilie Devos, Patrick Weller, Johannes Seystahl, Katharina Mo, Francesca Compter, Annette Sophie Berghoff, Anna Jongen, Joost Wolpert, Fabian Rudà, Roberta Brandsma, Dieta van den Bent, Martin Preusse, Matthias Herrlinger, Ulrich Weller, Michael Neurooncol Adv Supplement Abstracts BACKGROUND: The EANO ESMO guidelines have proposed a classification of leptomeningeal metastases (LM) based on clinical (typical/atypical), cytological (positive/negative/equivocal) and MRI (A linear, B nodular, C linear and nodular, D normal or hydrocephalus only) presentation. Type I LM is defined by the presence of tumor cells in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (confirmed LM) whereas type II LM is defined by typical clinical and MRI signs (probable or possible LM). Here we explored the clinical utility of these EANO ESMO LM subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assembled data from 254 patients with newly diagnosed LM from different solid tumors, including as main primary tumors breast cancer (n=98, 45%), lung cancer (n=65, 25.5%) and melanoma (n=51, 13.5%). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Log-rank test. RESULTS: Median age at LM diagnosis was 56.5 years (range 20–82 years). Typical clinical LM symptoms or signs were noted in 225 patients (88.5%); only 13 patients (5%) were clinically asymptomatic. The most common MRI subtype was A seen in 117 patients (46%). Types B (n=33, 13%), C (n=54, 21%) and D (n=50, 19.5%) were less common. Tumor cells were observed in the CSF in 186 patients (73%) whereas the CSF was equivocal in 24 (9.5%) and negative in 44 (17.5%) patients. Patients with confirmed LM had inferior outcome than patients with probable or possible LM (p=0.0063). Type I patients had inferior outcome than type II patients (p=0.0019). Nodular disease was a negative prognostic factor in type II LM, but not in type I LM (p=0.0138). CONCLUSION: The presence of tumor cells in the CSF appears to have a greater prognostic role than the neuroimaging presentation. EANO ESMO LM subtypes are highly prognostic and should be considered in the design of clinical trials. Oxford University Press 2020-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7401337/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa073.029 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Supplement Abstracts Le Rhun, Emilie Devos, Patrick Weller, Johannes Seystahl, Katharina Mo, Francesca Compter, Annette Sophie Berghoff, Anna Jongen, Joost Wolpert, Fabian Rudà, Roberta Brandsma, Dieta van den Bent, Martin Preusse, Matthias Herrlinger, Ulrich Weller, Michael 41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS |
title | 41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS |
title_full | 41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS |
title_fullStr | 41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS |
title_full_unstemmed | 41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS |
title_short | 41. PROGNOSTIC VALIDATION OF THE EANO ESMO CLASSIFICATION OF LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASIS |
title_sort | 41. prognostic validation of the eano esmo classification of leptomeningeal metastasis |
topic | Supplement Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7401337/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa073.029 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lerhunemilie 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT devospatrick 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT wellerjohannes 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT seystahlkatharina 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT mofrancesca 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT compterannette 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT sophieberghoffanna 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT jongenjoost 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT wolpertfabian 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT rudaroberta 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT brandsmadieta 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT vandenbentmartin 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT preussematthias 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT herrlingerulrich 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis AT wellermichael 41prognosticvalidationoftheeanoesmoclassificationofleptomeningealmetastasis |