Journal of Skeleton System

Abstract

Lung cancer is a disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality on a global setting. This form of cancer commonly gives raise to metastatic lesions the brain, which can further worsen outcomes. In this focused review, we discuss an overview of lung cancers that metastasize to the brain: known risk factors; means of detection and diagnosis; and options for treatment including a comparison between surgical resection, stereotactic radiosurgery, and whole-brain radiation therapy. These interventions are still being assessed by clinical trials and continue to be modified through evidence-based practice. 

Introduction

Lung cancer is the most common form of malignancy and cause of cancer-related deaths in the world, and the second leading form of cancer-related deaths in the United States.[1,2] Several types of lung cancer exist and may roughly be grouped into small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the latter being broken down further into adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer, and large cell carcinoma.[3] Cases of respiratory cancers with metastases involving the brain have been associated with significantly higher levels of both morbidity and mortality.[4,5] An estimated 20% of patients who present with lung cancer will have a brain metastasis at the time of diagnosis, and up to 50% of lung cancer patients will develop brain metastases (BrMs) over the course of their illness.[6-8] The formation of BrMs is a complex, multistep process that involves the spread of cancerous cells from the initial site of neoplastic growth to the eventual colonization of the brain.[9,10] Genetic analyses have linked several driver mutations in the development of BrMs in varying lung malignancies: mutations in tumor suppressor LKB1 and KRAS are predictive of BrMs in NSCLCs;[11] lung adenocarcinomas with mutations in EGFR and ALK, and hyperactivity within the WNT signally pathway have demonstrated higher occurrence of BrMs;[12-14] and upregulation of ANGT4 and PDGFRB genes have been linked with SCLC BrMs.[15]

Central Nervous System Diagnosis

BrMs are often initially detected from imaging as part of a metastatic tumor workup, or following the advent of clinical symptoms; with a definitive diagnosis later being confirmed via biopsy.[16,17] BrMs, particularly with those presenting with neurologic symptoms, are associated with a poorer prognosis.[4,18,19] However, outcomes are greatly improved when metastases are detected earlier, and are thus smaller in size.[4,18] Early detection could allow for use of minimally invasive procedures such as LITT,[20] stereotactic radiosurgery,[21-23] gamma knife surgery,[24] whole brain radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.[23] As such, there is increasing research for the detection of early brain metastases, with a focus on identifying risk factors. 

Previous research has identified several risk factors specific for the presence of BrMs in NSCLC: being the female gender; concurrent lymphatic metastases; specific microRNA signatures; a high neutrophil to lymphocyte (NLR) ratio; elevated levels of neurofilament light chain; presence of EGFR driver mutation; and elevated serum levels of CEA, S100B, ProApolipoprotein A1 (apo A-1), Ki-67, VEGF-C, caspace-3, and calcium.[25-37] Sun, et at., have even postulated that ProApolipoprotein A1 and S100B alone may be used for an independent and accurate diagnosis of metastatic brain tumors; which could allow a clinician performing metastatic work ups to administer prophylactic treatments, such as intracranial irradiation.[25] 

Preclinical studies using rodent models have demonstrated early detection of BrMs by employing molecular MRI with contrast agents that highlight tumor vascular factors ALCAM21 and VCAM-1.[38-40] Routine pre-operative and post-operative imaging should also be considered: a study by Yokoi, et al., showed that CT and MRI detected brain metastases in 6.8% and 7.1% of 155 and 177 patients, respectively, during the perioperative period for patients with non-squamous cell lung cancer.[41] Preclinical rodent studies have also indicated that brain metastases can be diagnosed even at micrometastatic stages by screening for urine metabolites; however, these were not specific for lung cancer.[42] 

The development of machine learning algorithms has also been shown as a promising method of early detection. Machine learning is performed by teaching a machine a dataset with known predictors and outcomes using algorithms. What the machine then “learns” can be used in diagnosis in datasets where the diagnosis is unknown.[43,44] Cho (2021) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 studies using classical machine learning and deep learning on MRI modalities, revealing pooled 88.7% and 90.1

Imaging Modalities

Several options in terms of imaging modalities are available in the diagnosing of BrMs. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the modality primarily used in the diagnosing and localization of brain tumors in patients with brain lesions, as high level of availability, comparatively high resolution, and excellent capabilities for the characterization of soft tissues are provided by this device; additionally, with specific sequences, supplementary biological information like apoptosis, cell density, or angiogenesis can be measured (diffusion-weighted MRIs or perfusion-weighted MRIs)[48,49] Certain paramagnetic contrast agents (CA) can also reveal impaired blood-brain barriers (BBBs).[50] The downside to the modality is the lack of specificity for neoplastic tissue, which makes it challenging to detect malignancies, monitor cancer progression, or detect potential lesion growth.[51] Additionally, MRI is unable to assess treatment response after surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy nor the quantity of inflammatory, demyelinating, infarction, and ischemia.[48] 

A molecular imaging technique called Positron Emission Tomography (PET), which detects emitted photons from radiotracers, is another advanced imaging technique widely used in brain cancer patients. Using PET imaging, metabolic processes, like glucose metabolism and amino acid uptake, can be measured noninvasively and quantitatively.[52] Despite this, PET is unable to distinguish between grey and white matter structural abnormalities. PET is also limited by its lower spatial resolution, and inability to detect rapid changes in brain activity.[53] However, PET does have the advantage of being able to co-register medical images with other imaging methods. In oncology, integrating these two techniques to develop simultaneous multimodal imaging is particularly relevant, as it allows clinicians to assess the tumor microenvironment with the help of several diagnostic biomarkers.[54,55] 

Hybrid PET/MRI scanners enable high-resolution metabolic and anatomical imaging.[53,56] This method combines both the high sensitivity of PET and the high resolution of MRI to provide a comprehensive picture of anatomical details. These coupled PET and MRI examinations may prove to be significantly more advantageous than independent examinations when attempting to understand tumor characteristics and determining whether surgery or radiation therapy would be an more appropriate intervention.[54,57] However, there is no conclusive evidence that PET/MRI is superior to PET/CT in oncology, and hybrid PET/MRI systems typically require longer scanning times and are associated with higher costs when compared to PET/CT systems.[58] 

Radiopharmaceuticals should be selected based on the characteristics of the tumor being examined. PET tracers like [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) are most used because tumor cells exhibit a higher glucose metabolism than healthy tissues[54,59] In cancer cells, [18F] FDG is trapped after crossing the BBB. Beta-emitting 14Cdeoxyglucose (DG) was demonstrated as a BBB crosser in the early 1970s.[60] By the hexokinase system, [18F] FDG is phosphorylated by glucose transporters and transported into cells. As a result, it persists in tissues for a long time since it cannot be metabolized.[61] [18F] FDG has a low specificity and shows a high background uptake by the normal brain despite its widespread use in clinical practice. A PET tracer based on amino acids was developed in response to these limitations.[54,62] It can be demonstrated that these amino acid tracers are elevated in malignant tumors because of unregulated protein synthesis, a symptom of increased cell proliferation.[49] The most common examples are 3'-deoxy-3'-[18F] fluorothymidine ([18F] FLT), 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-L-phenylalanine ([18F] FDOPA), and [11C] methionine ([11C] MET).[54,59,62,63] 

Treatment

Current treatments for lung cancer patients with BrMs include supportive care, surgical resection, radiotherapies.[64] The integration of palliative care in the management of BrMs should also be considered as it has been shown to greatly improve the quality of life, appetite, and mood; and is correlated with better survival rates, despite less aggressive treatment.[65] Supportive medications, such as steroids and antiseizure drugs, have also demonstrated increased survival rates when coupled with traditional radiotherapies.[6,66-68] 

Surgical Management

The discussion of surgically resecting BrMs is best understood by first outlining the distinct subsets of clinical presentations. One subset is when the tumor size is large and causing severe neurologic symptoms, such as mass effect.[69,70] The former subset often falls under the category of necessarily more urgent or emergent in nature, often requiring hastened neurosurgical intervention.[71,72] The mechanism behind this presentation may be either due to direct pressure on the brain tissue from the tumor itself, or from uncontrolled cerebral edema that secondarily increases intracranial pressure and can lead to acute herniation syndrome.[73] Given that some evidence points to the capacity for brain metastases to cause even more cerebral edema than primary tumors, this may further increase the importance of considering expedited neurosurgical intervention in these patients via resection of the tumor.[74,75] 

Another subset of patients who meet criteria for surgical resection are those with a brain metastasis that is not large or causing severe neurologic symptoms, but in patients in which the intracranial disease is limited, systemic disease is controlled, and the patient is functionally independent.[70,76]  Furthermore, surgery is often preferred with an extracranial metastasis from lung cancer if there is only one single lesion.[77] Given that radiation therapy is a commonly used treatment modality for brain metastases from lung cancer, it is also important to describe when surgery is preferred in these instances. This is often the case with BrMs that arise from a primary lung cancer that is resistant to radiotherapy.[78,79]  Surgery for patients comprised in this subset is also often indicated in patients who have had radiation therapy in the past, as this is often necessary to definitively distinguish between radiation-related tissue necrosis and presence of tumor metastasis.[80-82] Lastly, in patients with multiple brain metastases, surgical resection is commonly indicated for the dominant lesion.[83] A summary of the above indications is outlined in Figure 1.

Radiation

Radiotherapies in the treatment of metastatic brain lesions are primarily groups into Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT).[84,85] SRS is a non-invasive form of radiation therapy that uses concentrated, multi-focal beams of radiation to destroy tissues.[84,86] There are multiple radiation delivery methods of SRS: Gamma Knife, Linear accelerator (LINAC), and Proton beam therapy. Gamma knife surgery uses gamma radiation in a very small operating field, while LINAC uses x-ray radiation with greater operating flexibility. Proton beam therapy is like Gamma knife and LINAC; however, it uses protons or neutrons instead of photons and has been thought to prevent some deleterious side effects related to conventional therapy. In contrast to the concentrated nature of SRS, whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is an exposure of the entire cranium to radiation.[87] WBRT is the current standard for treatment of BrMs from NSCLC in patients with multiple metastases.[88] Although WBRT is being replaced with SRS for other forms of BrMs, it remains the standard for NSCLC and SCLC metastases.[89] 

SRS and WBRT may be used exclusively as well as in conjunction with other modalities.[88] Literature reports that WBRT in addition to SRS has a negative impact on cognitive function post treatment, but also shows lower cancer recurrence rates overall.[85-87,90-92] Aoyama et al. reported tumor reoccurrence rate of about 45% in SRS + WBRT and about 75% in SRS alone.[86] Brown et al. found that adult patients with 1-3 lung cancer metastasis who underwent SRS+WBRT (n=48) treatment had worse post-operative cognitive scores and neurological deterioration compared to those treated with SRS alone (n=63).[90] These studies suggest that using SRS in conjunction with WBRT could lead to worse cognitive outcomes, but lower rates of tumor recurrence compared to exclusive SRS treatment. 

            Treatment via SRS and WBRT differs in dosage and number of fractions. A fraction refers to dividing up the total radiation dosage into multiple treatments and maximizes the effectiveness of radiotherapy. This is accomplished by administering radiation on regularly time intervals which correlate with radiosensitive stages in the cell cycle of cancer cells.[93] SRS treatment typically consists of one fraction at a dose of 15-24 Gray (Gy).[93-95] However, new therapies like hypo-fractioned SRS (HF-SRS), that deliver multiple fractions, have recently shown to increase outcomes and decrease toxicity for large (>3cm) tumors.[93] A limitation to this approach is the possibility of tumor cell regrowth between fractioned doses.[93] In contrast to single dose SRS, WBRT is administered in multiple fractions. WBRT irradiates the entire cranium and is typically administered in 10 fractions of 3 Grays (Gy).[84,88,96,97] Literature shows that fraction dosages greater than 3 Gy may be associated with WBRT-related neurotoxic effects.[96-98] WBRT may cause cognitive decline, but it may also treat micro-metastases that have gone undetected on imaging. 

When ionizing radiation is introduced to tissues, a large quantity of free radicals is created, and these free radicals combined with oxygen in the blood and destroy surrounding tissues.[99-101] Studies have demonstrated hypoxia to decrease radiation therapy results because of free oxygen able to radicalize.[101,102] As such, hypoxic tumors need 2.5-3 times the radiation dosage to reach the same efficacy as non-hypoxic tumors.[99,103] Fractioning schedules allow time for blood to return to tumor cells, increasing the amount of oxygen available to be ionized and the overall effectiveness of radiotherapy. 

Conclusion

The development of brain metastases in lung cancer patients continues to be a major health concern on a global scale. These metastatic tumors significantly increase both morbidity and mortality rates among patients. Despite advances in medical technology, no treatment yet exists without adverse effects, or low remission rates: surgical resection alone leaves concern for untreated micrometases; and radiotherapies are associated with gross cognitive decline. Optimum dosing and fractioning in both stereotactic radiosurgery and whole brain radiation therapy have been investigated to find an optimal approach, but results are not without there drawbacks. Ultimately, the most promising option for improving mortality and morbidity rates lies in the detection of brain metastases as early as possible; thereby minimizing the intensity of treatment—and therefore adverse consequences—needed. 

Tables and Figures

Table 1. Summary of known risk factors and pre-clinical studies with early detection of BrMs in lung cancer. 

Table 2. Summary of comparison between Whole Brain Radiation Therapy (WBRT), and Stereotactic Radiation Surgery (SRS).

References

1. Cancer Facts & Figures 2021. Published online 1930:72.
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. (2012), Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN. International Journal of Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-E386. doi:10.1002/ijc.29210
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
3. Types of lung cancer | Cancer Research UK. Accessed August 28, 2022. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/stages-types-grades/types
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
4. Sperduto PW, Kased N, Roberge D, et al. (2012), Summary Report on the Graded Prognostic Assessment: An Accurate and Facile Diagnosis-Specific Tool to Estimate Survival for Patients With Brain Metastases. JCO.30(4):419-425. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.0527
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
5. Sacks P, Rahman M. (2020), Epidemiology of Brain Metastases. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.31(4):481-488. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2020.06.001
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
6. Sørensen JB, Hansen HH, Hansen M, Dombernowsky P. (1988), Brain metastases in adenocarcinoma of the lung: frequency, risk groups, and prognosis. JCO.6(9):1474-1480. doi:10.1200/JCO.1988.6.9.1474
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
7. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2019;69(1):7-34. doi:10.3322/caac.21551
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
8. Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Sloan AE, Davis FG, Vigneau FD, Lai P, Sawaya RE. Incidence Proportions of Brain Metastases in Patients Diagnosed (1973 to 2001) in the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System. JCO. 2004;22(14):2865-2872. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.12.149
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
9. Valastyan S, Weinberg RA. Tumor Metastasis: Molecular Insights and Evolving Paradigms. Cell. 2011;147(2):275-292. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.024
   View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
10. Achrol AS, Rennert RC, Anders C, et al. Brain metastases. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019;5(1):1-26. doi:10.1038/s41572-018-0055-y
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
11. Zhao N, Wilkerson MD, Shah U, et al. Alterations of LKB1 and KRAS and risk of brain metastasis: comprehensive characterization by mutation analysis, copy number, and gene expression in non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2014;86(2):255-261. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.08.013
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
12. Hayes DN, Monti S, Parmigiani G, et al. Gene expression profiling reveals reproducible human lung adenocarcinoma subtypes in multiple independent patient cohorts. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(31):5079-5090. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.05.1748
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
13. Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2014;511(7511):543-550. doi:10.1038/nature13385
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
14. Nguyen DX, Chiang AC, Zhang XHF, et al. WNT/TCF signaling through LEF1 and HOXB9 mediates lung adenocarcinoma metastasis. Cell. 2009;138(1):51-62. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.030
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
15. Ilhan-Mutlu A, Siehs C, Berghoff AS, et al. Expression profiling of angiogenesis-related genes in brain metastases of lung cancer and melanoma. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(1):1173-1182. doi:10.1007/s13277-015-3790-7
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
16. Fink KR, Fink JR. Imaging of brain metastases. Surg Neurol Int. 2013;4(Suppl 4):S209-S219. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.111298
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
17. Posner JB. Management of brain metastases. Rev Neurol (Paris). 1992;148(6-7):477-487.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
18. Ali A, Goffin JR, Arnold A, Ellis PM. Survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after a diagnosis of brain metastases. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(4):e300-e306. doi:10.3747/co.20.1481
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
19. Sánchez de Cos J, Sojo González MA, Montero MV, Pérez Calvo MC, Vicente MJM, Valle MH. Non-small cell lung cancer and silent brain metastasis. Survival and prognostic factors. Lung Cancer. 2009;63(1):140-145. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.04.013
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
20. Bastos DC de A, Fuentes DT, Traylor J, et al. The use of laser interstitial thermal therapy in the treatment of brain metastases: a literature review. International Journal of Hyperthermia. 2020;37(2):53-60. doi:10.1080/02656736.2020.1748238
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
21. Linskey ME, Andrews DW, Asher AL, et al. The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol. 2010;96(1):45-68. doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0073-4
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
22. Swinson BM, Friedman WA. Linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery for metastatic brain tumors: 17 years of experience at the University of Florida. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(5):1018-1031; discussion 1031-1032. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000325863.91584.09
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
23. Chi A, Komaki R. Treatment of Brain Metastasis from Lung Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2010;2(4):2100-2137. doi:10.3390/cancers2042100
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
24. Sansur CA, Chin LS, Ames JW, et al. Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for the Treatment of Brain Metastases. SFN. 2000;74(1):37-51. doi:10.1159/000056462
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
25. Sun DS, Hu LK, Cai Y, et al. A systematic review of risk factors for brain metastases and value of prophylactic cranial irradiation in non-small cell lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(3):1233-1239. doi:10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.3.1233
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
26. An N, Jing W, Wang H, et al. Risk factors for brain metastases in patients with non–small‐cell lung cancer. Cancer Med. 2018;7(12):6357-6364. doi:10.1002/cam4.1865
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
27. Chen S, Hua X, Jia J, et al. Risk factors for brain metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of 43 studies. Annals of Palliative Medicine. 2021;10(4):3657672-3653672. doi:10.21037/apm-20-1722
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
28. Lee DS, Kim YS, Jung SL, et al. The relevance of serum carcinoembryonic antigen as an indicator of brain metastasis detection in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Tumor Biol. 2012;33(4):1065-1073. doi:10.1007/s13277-012-0344-0
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
29. Choi H, Puvenna V, Brennan C, et al. S100B and S100B autoantibody as biomarkers for early detection of brain metastases in lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2016;5(4):413-419. doi:10.21037/tlcr.2016.07.08
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
30. Winther-Larsen A, Hviid CVB, Meldgaard P, Sorensen BS, Sandfeld-Paulsen B. Neurofilament Light Chain as A Biomarker for Brain Metastases. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10):2852. doi:10.3390/cancers12102852
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
31. Gaebe K, Li AY, Das S. Clinical Biomarkers for Early Identification of Patients with Intracranial Metastatic Disease. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(23):5973. doi:10.3390/cancers13235973
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
32. Chen L tao, Xu S dong, Xu H, Zhang J feng, Ning J feng, Wang S fa. MicroRNA-378 is associated with non-small cell lung cancer brain metastasis by promoting cell migration, invasion and tumor angiogenesis. Med Oncol. 2012;29(3):1673-1680. doi:10.1007/s12032-011-0083-x
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
33. Naresh G, Malik PS, Khurana S, et al. Assessment of Brain Metastasis at Diagnosis in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Observational Study From North India. JCO Glob Oncol. 2021;7:GO.20.00629. doi:10.1200/GO.20.00629
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
34. Milano MT, Bates JE, Budnik J, et al. Risk of brain metastases in T1–3N0 NSCLC: a population-based analysis. Lung Cancer Manag. 9(1):LMT25. doi:10.2217/lmt-2019-0010
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
35. Ji Z, Bi N, Wang J, et al. Risk Factors for Brain Metastases in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Definitive Chest Radiation. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2014;89(2):330-337. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.02.025
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
36. Marchi N, Mazzone P, Fazio V, Mekhail T, Masaryk T, Janigro D. ProApolipoprotein A1. Cancer. 2008;112(6):1313-1324. doi:10.1002/cncr.23314
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
37. He J, Wang X, Xiao R, Zuo W, Zhang W, Yao H. Risk factors for brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(9):e24724. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000024724
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
38. Cheng VWT, de Pennington N, Zakaria R, et al. VCAM-1–targeted MRI Improves Detection of the Tumor-brain Interface. Clinical Cancer Research. 2022;28(11):2385-2396. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-4011
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
39. Cheng VWT, Soto MS, Khrapitchev AA, et al. VCAM-1–targeted MRI Enables Detection of Brain Micrometastases from Different Primary Tumors. Clinical Cancer Research. 2019;25(2):533-543. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1889
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
40. Serres S, Soto MS, Hamilton A, et al. Molecular MRI enables early and sensitive detection of brain metastases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(17):6674-6679. doi:10.1073/pnas.1117412109
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
41. Yokoi K, Kamiya N, Matsuguma H, et al. Detection of Brain Metastasis in Potentially Operable Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Comparison of CT and MRI. Chest. 1999;115(3):714-719. doi:10.1378/chest.115.3.714
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
42. Larkin JR, Dickens AM, Claridge TDW, et al. Early Diagnosis of Brain Metastases Using a Biofluids-Metabolomics Approach in Mice. Theranostics. 2016;6(12):2161-2169. doi:10.7150/thno.16538
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
43. Erickson BJ, Korfiatis P, Akkus Z, Kline TL. Machine Learning for Medical Imaging. Radiographics. 2017;37(2):505-515. doi:10.1148/rg.2017160130
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
44. Wagner MW, Namdar K, Biswas A, Monah S, Khalvati F, Ertl-Wagner BB. Radiomics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence—what the neuroradiologist needs to know. Neuroradiology. 2021;63(12):1957-1967. doi:10.1007/s00234-021-02813-9
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
45. Cho SJ, Sunwoo L, Baik SH, Bae YJ, Choi BS, Kim JH. Brain metastasis detection using machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2020;23(2):214-225. doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa232
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
46. Wang KJ, Makond B, Wang KM. Modeling and predicting the occurrence of brain metastasis from lung cancer by Bayesian network: A case study of Taiwan. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2014;47:147-160. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2014.02.002
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
47. Zhao S, Yu J, Wang L. Machine Learning Based Prediction of Brain Metastasis of Patients with IIIA-N2 Lung Adenocarcinoma by a Three-miRNA Signature. Translational Oncology. 2018;11(1):157-167. doi:10.1016/j.tranon.2017.12.002
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
48. Marner L, Henriksen OM, Lundemann M, Larsen VA, Law I. Clinical PET/MRI in neurooncology: opportunities and challenges from a single-institution perspective. Clinical and translational imaging. 2017;5(2):135-149.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
49. Lopci E, Franzese C, Grimaldi M, et al. Imaging biomarkers in primary brain tumours. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2015;42(4):597-612.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
50. Catana C, Drzezga A, Heiss WD, Rosen BR. PET/MRI for neurologic applications. Journal of nuclear medicine. 2012;53(12):1916-1925.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
51. Lohmann P, Werner JM, Shah NJ, Fink GR, Langen KJ, Galldiks N. Combined amino acid positron emission tomography and advanced magnetic resonance imaging in glioma patients. Cancers. 2019;11(2):153.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
52. Mier W, Mier D. Advantages in functional imaging of the brain. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2015;9:249.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
53. Overcast WB, Davis KM, Ho CY, et al. Advanced imaging techniques for neuro-oncologic tumor diagnosis, with an emphasis on PET-MRI imaging of malignant brain tumors. Current Oncology Reports. 2021;23(3):1-15.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
54. Ferda J, Ferdová E, Hes O, Mraček J, Kreuzberg B, Baxa J. PET/MRI: Multiparametric imaging of brain tumors. European Journal of Radiology. 2017;94:A14-A25.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
55. Rosenkrantz AB, Friedman K, Chandarana H, et al. Current status of hybrid PET/MRI in oncologic imaging. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2016;206(1):162.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
56. Heiss WD. The potential of PET/MR for brain imaging. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2009;36(1):105-112.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
57. Rausch I, Rischka L, Ladefoged CN, et al. PET/MRI for oncologic brain imaging: a comparison of standard MR-based attenuation corrections with a model-based approach for the Siemens mMR PET/MR System. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2017;58(9):1519-1525.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
58. Mayerhoefer ME, Prosch H, Beer L, et al. PET/MRI versus PET/CT in oncology: a prospective single-center study of 330 examinations focusing on implications for patient management and cost considerations. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2020;47(1):51-60.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
59. Puttick S, Bell C, Dowson N, Rose S, Fay M. PET, MRI, and simultaneous PET/MRI in the development of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for glioma. Drug discovery today. 2015;20(3):306-317.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
60. Quartuccio N, Laudicella R, Vento A, et al. The additional value of 18F-FDG PET and MRI in patients with glioma: a review of the literature from 2015 to 2020. Diagnostics. 2020;10(6):357.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
61. Verberne S, Temmerman O. Imaging of prosthetic joint infections. In: Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infections (PJIs). Elsevier; 2017:259-285.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
62. Nandu H, Wen PY, Huang RY. Imaging in neuro-oncology. Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders. 2018;11:1756286418759865.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
63. Glaudemans AW, Enting RH, Heesters MA, et al. Value of 11C-methionine PET in imaging brain tumours and metastases. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2013;40(4):615-635.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
64. Mehta MP, Rodrigus P, Terhaard C, et al. Survival and neurologic outcomes in a randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation therapy in brain metastases. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003;21(13):2529-2536.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
65. Temel JS, Greer J. muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, Jackson VA, Dahlin Cm, Blinderman CD, Jacobsen J, Pirl WF, Billings JA, Lynch TJ. Early palliative care for patients with non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733-742.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
66. Langer CJ, Mehta MP. Current management of brain metastases, with a focus on systemic options. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005;23(25):6207-6219.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
67. Ruderman NB, Hall TC. Use of glucocorticoids in the palliative treatment of metastatic brain tumors. Cancer. 1965;18(3):298-306.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
68. Khuntia D, Brown P, Li J, Mehta MP. Whole-brain radiotherapy in the management of brain metastasis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006;24(8):1295-1304.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
69. Kotecha R, Gondi V, Ahluwalia MS, Brastianos PK, Mehta MP. Recent advances in managing brain metastasis. F1000Res. 2018;7:F1000 Faculty Rev-1772. doi:10.12688/f1000research.15903.1
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
70. Hatiboglu MA, Akdur K, Sawaya R. Neurosurgical management of patients with brain metastasis. Neurosurg Rev. 2020;43(2):483-495. doi:10.1007/s10143-018-1013-6
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
71. BRUZZANITI P, LAPOLLA P, D’AMICO A, et al. En Bloc Resection of Solitary Brain Metastasis: The Role of Perilesional Edema. In Vivo. 2022;36(3):1274-1284. doi:10.21873/invivo.12827
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
72. Wen PY, Loeffler JS. Brain metastases. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2000;1(5):447-458. doi:10.1007/s11864-000-0072-3
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
73. Esquenazi Y, Lo VP, Lee K. Critical Care Management of Cerebral Edema in Brain Tumors. J Intensive Care Med. 2017;32(1):15-24. doi:10.1177/0885066615619618
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
74. Baris MM, Celik AO, Gezer NS, Ada E. Role of mass effect, tumor volume and peritumoral edema volume in the differential diagnosis of primary brain tumor and metastasis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;148:67-71. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.07.008
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
75. Yaltirik Bilgin E, Unal O, Ciledag N. Vasogenic Edema Pattern in Brain Metastasis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2022;32(8):1020-1025. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2022.08.1020
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
76. Kalkanis SN, Kondziolka D, Gaspar LE, et al. The role of surgical resection in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol. 2010;96(1):33-43. doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0061-8
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
77. Nemeth AJ, Henson JW, Mullins ME, Gonzalez RG, Schaefer PW. Improved detection of skull metastasis with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(6):1088-1092. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0501
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
78. Tirinato L, Onesto V, Garcia-Calderon D, et al. Human lung-cancer-cell radioresistance investigated through 2D network topology. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):12980. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-17018-0
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
79. Yao Y, Fareed R, Zafar A, et al. State-of-the-art combination treatment strategies for advanced stage non–small cell lung cancer. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022;12. Accessed August 29, 2022. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2022.958505
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
80. Ozcan G, Singh M, Vredenburgh JJ. Leptomeningeal Metastasis from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Current Landscape of Treatments. Clin Cancer Res. Published online August 16, 2022:CCR-22-1585. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-1585
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
81. Park SJ, Lim SH, Kim YJ, et al. The Tumor Control According to Radiation Dose of Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Small and Medium-Sized Brain Metastases from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2021;64(6):983-994. doi:10.3340/jkns.2021.0165
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
82. Devan SP, Jiang X, Luo G, et al. Selective cell size MRI differentiates brain tumors from radiation necrosis. Cancer Res. Published online July 25, 2022:CAN-21-2929. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-2929
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
83. Paek SH, Audu PB, Sperling MR, Cho J, Andrews DW. Reevaluation of surgery for the treatment of brain metastases: review of 208 patients with single or multiple brain metastases treated at one institution with modern neurosurgical techniques. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(5):1021-1034; discussion 1021-1034.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
84. Desai R, Rich KM. Therapeutic Role of Gamma Knife Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Neuro-Oncology. Mo Med. 2020;117(1):33-38.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
85. Goldberg SB, Contessa JN, Omay SB, Chiang V. Lung Cancer Brain Metastases. Cancer J. 2015;21(5):398-403. doi:10.1097/PPO.0000000000000146
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
86. Abe E, Aoyama H. The Role of Whole Brain Radiation Therapy for the Management of Brain Metastases in the Era of Stereotactic Radiosurgery. Curr Oncol Rep. 2012;14(1):79-84. doi:10.1007/s11912-011-0201-0
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
87. Perlow HK, Dibs K, Liu K, et al. Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy Versus Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Cerebral Metastases. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America. 2020;31(4):565-573. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2020.06.006
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
88. Sas-Korczynska B, Rucinska M. WBRT for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: for whom and when?—Contemporary point of view. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(5):3246-3257. doi:10.21037/jtd-2019-rbmlc-06
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
89. Rusthoven CG, Yamamoto M, Bernhardt D, et al. Evaluation of First-line Radiosurgery vs Whole-Brain Radiotherapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer Brain Metastases. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(7):1028-1037. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1271
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
90. Brown PD, Jaeckle K, Ballman KV, et al. 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. 2016;316(4):401-409. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9839
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
91. Tallet AV, Azria D, Barlesi F, et al. Neurocognitive function impairment after whole brain radiotherapy for brain metastases: actual assessment. Radiation Oncology. 2012;7(1):77. doi:10.1186/1748-717X-7-77
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
92. Lee J, Ahn MJ. Brain metastases in patients with oncogenic-driven non-small cell lung cancer: Pros and cons for early radiotherapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021;100:102291. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102291
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
93. Kirkpatrick JP, Soltys SG, Lo SS, Beal K, Shrieve DC, Brown PD. The radiosurgery fractionation quandary: single fraction or hypofractionation? Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(Suppl 2):ii38-ii49. doi:10.1093/neuonc/now301
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
94. Badiyan SN, Regine WF, Mehta M. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Treatment of Brain Metastases. JOP. 2016;12(8):703-712. doi:10.1200/JOP.2016.012922
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
95. Gondi V, Bauman G, Bradfield L, et al. Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2022;12(4):265-282. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2022.02.003
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
96. Rades D, Haatanen T, Schild SE, Dunst J. Dose escalation beyond 30 grays in 10 fractions for patients with multiple brain metastases. Cancer. 2007;110(6):1345-1350. doi:10.1002/cncr.22906
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
97. Trifiletti DM, Ballman KV, Brown PD, et al. Optimizing Whole Brain Radiation Therapy Dose and Fractionation: Results From a Prospective Phase 3 Trial (NCCTG N107C [Alliance]/CEC.3). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;106(2):255-260. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.024
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
98. Jairam V, Chiang VL, Bond J, Yu JB. Equivalent whole brain dose for patients undergoing gamma knife for multiple lesions. J Radiosurg SBRT. 2015;3(3):187-191.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
99. Sorensen BS, Horsman MR. Tumor Hypoxia: Impact on Radiation Therapy and Molecular Pathways. Front Oncol. 2020;10:562. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.00562
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
100. Horsman MR, Mortensen LS, Petersen JB, Busk M, Overgaard J. Imaging hypoxia to improve radiotherapy outcome. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9(12):674-687. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.171
     View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
101. Overgaard J. Hypoxic Radiosensitization: Adored and Ignored. JCO. 2007;25(26):4066-4074. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.12.7878
     View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
102. Yoshimura M, Itasaka S, Harada H, Hiraoka M. Microenvironment and radiation therapy. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:685308. doi:10.1155/2013/685308
     View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
103. Gray LH, Conger AD, Ebert M, Hornsey S, Scott OC. The concentration of oxygen dissolved in tissues at the time of irradiation as a factor in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 1953;26(312):638-648. doi:10.1259/0007-1285-26-312-638
     View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar