MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409531921 · doi:10.1200/jco-24-01351

Improved Survival and Prognostication in Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases: An Update of the Melanoma Graded Prognostic Assessment

2025· article· en· W4409531921 on OpenAlexaff
Paul W. Sperduto, Kathryn E. Marqueen, Enoch Chang, Jing Li, Michael A. Davies, Daniel K. Ebner, William G. Breen, Nayan Lamba, Helen A. Shih, Donna M. Edwards, Michelle M. Kim, Amandeep R. Mahal, Rifaquat Rahman, Nii Ankrah, Drexell H. Boggs, Calvin D. Lewis, Daniel E. Hyer, John M. Buatti, Fasila Johri, Hany Soliman, Laura Masucci, David Roberge, Sanjay Aneja, Veronica Chiang, Christina Phuong, Steve Braunstein, Salah Dajani, Sean Sachdev, Zihan Wan, Donna Niedzwiecki, Eugene Vaios, John P. Kirkpatrick, Jared Pasetsky, Tony J. C. Wang, Tuğçe Kütük, Rupesh Kotecha, Richard B. Ross, Chad G. Rusthoven, Toshimichi Nakano, Hussein A. Tawbi, Minesh P. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaInternal medicineOncologyCohortRetrospective cohort studyProportional hazards modelSurvival analysisCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Survival for patients with melanoma has recently improved. The propensity of melanoma to metastasize to the brain remains a common and serious feature of this disease. The purposes of this study were to evaluate prognostic factors for patients with newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) in a large cohort treated with modern multimodal therapies, compare those results with those in prior eras, and update the Melanoma Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). METHODS: Univariable and multivariable (MVA) analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival were performed on 1,796 patients with newly diagnosed MBM treated between January 01, 2015, and December 31, 2021, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness of potential predictors. Significant variables in combined MVA were used to update the Melanoma GPA. Comparisons were made with legacy cohorts. RESULTS: Median survivals for cohorts A (1985-2007, n = 481), B (2006-2015, n = 823), and C (2015-2021, n = 1,796) were 6.7, 9.8, and 16.6 months and median follow-up times were 40.1, 43.6, and 48.8 months, respectively. In combined MVA, significant prognostic factors for survival were higher Karnofsky Performance Status, fewer MBMs, absence of extracranial metastases, lower serum lactate dehydrogenase, and no immunotherapy before MBM. These factors were incorporated into the updated Melanoma GPA. The combined median and 3-year survivals for patients with GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, and 2.5-4.0 were 5.4, 13.2, and 43.2 months and 12.4%, 28.8%, and 51.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prognostic factors have changed and survival has improved for patients with MBM but varies widely by GPA. The updated Melanoma GPA calculator (BrainMetGPA), available free online, can be used to estimate survival, individualize treatment, stratify clinical trials, guide surveillance, and augment clinical trial eligibility. Multidisciplinary treatment is essential. Trials are needed to elucidate the optimal sequencing of various therapeutic modalities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207