Retrospective analysis reveals GPA predicts overall survival in melanoma brain metastases, suggesting refinement in treatment strategies.
Background Malignant melanoma ranks among the leading causes of brain metastases (BM). The Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) and the melanoma-specific molecular GPA (molGPA) are well-established prognostic tools that help estimate survival and guide therapeutic decisions. This single-center, retrospective clinical study aimed to evaluate prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), intracranial tumor control (IC), and intracranial progression-free survival (IPFS), as well as GPA and molGPA within a real-world clinical setting. Methods Patients with melanoma-associated BM who underwent radiotherapy (RT) between January 2016 and December 2023 were included. Study endpoints included OS, IC, and IPFS, with OS and IPFS analyzed across the entire cohort ( n = 59) and IC was evaluated in cases with follow-up imaging ( n = 47). Results The median survival of all patients was 6.9 months (IQR 2.2; 23.6). Regarding OS, three predictive factors were significantly associated with the survival probability: a Karnofsky performance status index (KPS) <70 ( p = 0.003), a GPA score of 0–1.0 versus 1.5–4.0 ( p = 0.002) and a molGPA score of 0–1.0 versus 1.5–4.0 ( p = 0.034). Intracranial progression-free survival was significantly decreased in patients with KPS <70 ( p = 0.01), multiple brain metastases ( p = 0.036), and GPA scores of 0–1.0 ( p = 0.011). Conclusions Both GPA and molGPA were validated as significant predictors of OS in patients with melanoma-associated BM. However, GPA emerged as the sole score significantly associated with both OS and IPFS, suggesting a potential advantage in its clinical utility. The validation of GPA and molGPA as significant predictors for OS in a real clinical setting support their use in guiding treatment recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philippi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: