Approximately 30% of patients with cancer develop brain metastases, and the incidence of these lesions is rising.^1,2 Most patients present with oligometastatic disease, which is to say limited intracranial metastases, usually defined as 1 to 3 lesions.³ Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective and commonly used treatment for brain metastases, but intracranial tumor progression is frequent after SRS alone, primarily because of the development of new metastatic lesions.^1,4,5 Previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have consistently demonstrated improved intracranial tumor control with the addition of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) to SRS for cerebral oligometastases; the clinical significance of this observation, however, remains unclear. None of these prospective analyses have demonstrated a survival advantage to adjuvant WBRT, and a single RCT has reported a survival disadvantage.^1,4,5 Additionally, central to this issue is whether tumor progression anywhere in the brain is more detrimental to a patient’s well-being than the potential deterioration of cognitive function and quality of life (QOL) associated with WBRT.^4,6,7 Because more than 200 000 individuals in the United States alone are estimated to receive WBRT each year,⁸ it is important that the potential benefits and risks of adjuvant WBRT be clearly defined. To address ongoing knowledge gaps, N0574, a multi-institutional RCT, investigated the role of adjuvant WBRT in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases treated with SRS (see trial protocol in Supplement 1).

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

PURPOSE: Radiation dose to the neuroregenerative zone of the hippocampus has been found to be associated with cognitive toxicity. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy during whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is hypothesized to preserve cognition.METHODS: This phase III trial enrolled adult patients with brain metastases to HA-WBRT plus memantine or WBRT plus memantine. The primary end point was time to cognitive function failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on at least one of the cognitive tests. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-reported symptom burden.RESULTS: Between July 2015 and March 2018, 518 patients were randomly assigned. Median follow-up for alive patients was 7.9 months. Risk of cognitive failure was significantly lower after HA-WBRT plus memantine versus WBRT plus memantine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95; P = .02). This difference was attributable to less deterioration in executive function at 4 months (23.3% v 40.4%; P = .01) and learning and memory at 6 months (11.5% v 24.7% [ P = .049] and 16.4% v 33.3% [ P = .02], respectively). Treatment arms did not differ significantly in OS, intracranial PFS, or toxicity. At 6 months, using all data, patients who received HA-WBRT plus memantine reported less fatigue ( P = .04), less difficulty with remembering things ( P = .01), and less difficulty with speaking ( P = .049) and using imputed data, less interference of neurologic symptoms in daily activities ( P = .008) and fewer cognitive symptoms ( P = .01).CONCLUSION: HA-WBRT plus memantine better preserves cognitive function and patient-reported symptoms, with no difference in intracranial PFS and OS, and should be considered a standard of care for patients with good performance status who plan to receive WBRT for brain metastases with no metastases in the HA region.

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).

Purpose: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a common occurrence and is associated with treatment resistance. Erlotinib, a selective EGFR inhibitor, was combined with temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy (RT) in a phase I/II trial. Patients and Methods: Adults not taking enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants after resection or biopsy of GBM were treated with erlotinib (150 mg daily) until progression. Erlotinib was delivered alone for 1 week, then concurrently with TMZ (75 mg mg/m² daily) and RT (60 Gy), and finally, concurrently with up to six cycles of adjuvant TMZ (200 mg/m² daily for 5 days every 28 days). The primary end point was survival at 1 year. Results: Ninety-seven eligible patients were accrued with a median follow-up time of 22.2 months. By definition, the primary end point was successfully met with a median survival time of 15.3 months. However, there was no sign of benefit in overall survival when comparing N0177 with the RT/TMZ arm of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Cancer Institute of Canada trial 26981/22981 (recursive partitioning analysis [RPA] class III, 19 v 21 months; RPA class IV, 16 v 16 months; RPA class V, 8 v 10 months, respectively). Presence of diarrhea, rash, and EGFRvIII, p53, phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), combination EGFR and PTEN, and EGFR amplification status were not predictive (P > .05) of survival. Conclusion: Although the primary end point was successfully met using nitrosourea-based (pre-TMZ) chemotherapy era historic controls, there was no sign of benefit compared with TMZ era controls. Analyses of molecular subsets did not reveal cohorts of patients sensitive to erlotinib. TMZ chemotherapy combined with RT resulted in improved outcomes compared with historical controls who received nitrosourea-based chemotherapies.