MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608792692 · doi:10.3171/2014.7.gks141488

Early Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery to the tumor bed of resected brain metastasis for improved local control

2014· article· en· W1608792692 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian Iorio‐Morin, Laurence Masson‐Côté, Youssef Ezahr, Jocelyn Blanchard, Annie Ébacher, David Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosurgeryMedicineBrain metastasisGamma knifeMetastasisStereotactic radiotherapyStereotactic surgeryRadiologyCancerRadiation therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Optimal case management after surgical removal of brain metastasis remains controversial. Although postoperative whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been shown to prevent local recurrence and decrease deaths, this modality can substantially decrease neurocognitive function and quality of life. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can theoretically achieve the same level of local control with fewer side effects, although studies conclusively demonstrating such outcomes are lacking. To assess the effectiveness and safety profile of tumor bed SRS after resection of brain metastasis, the authors performed a retrospective analysis of 110 patients who had received such treatment at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke. They designed the study to identify risk factors for local recurrence and placed special emphasis on factors that could potentially be addressed. METHODS: Patients who had received treatment from 2004 through 2013 were included if they had undergone surgical removal of 1 or more brain metastases and if the tumor bed was treated by SRS regardless of the extent of resection or prior WBRT. All cases were retrospectively analyzed for patient and tumor-specific factors, treatment protocol, adverse outcomes, cavity outcomes, and survival for as long as follow-up was available. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for local recurrence and predictors of increased survival times. RESULTS: Median patient age at first SRS treatment was 58 years (range 37-84 years). The most frequently diagnosed primary tumor was non-small cell lung cancer. The rate of gross-total resection was 81%. The median Karnofsky Performance Scale score was 90%. Tumor bed SRS was performed at a median of 3 weeks after surgery. Median follow-up and survival times were 10 and 11 months, respectively. Actuarial local control of the cavity at 12 months was 73%; median time to recurrence was 6 months. According to multivariate analysis, risk factors for recurrence were a longer surgery-to-SRS delay (HR 1.625, p = 0.003) and a lower maximum radiation dose delivered to the cavity (HR 0.817, p = 0.006). Factors not associated with increased recurrence were subtotal or piecemeal resections, prior WBRT, histology of the primary tumor, and larger cavity volume. No factors predictive of survival were identified. Symptomatic radiation-induced enhancement occurred in 6% of patients and leptomeningeal dissemination in 11%. Pathologically confirmed radiation-induced necrosis occurred in 1 (0.9%) patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant tumor bed SRS after the resection of brain metastasis is a valuable alternative to adjuvant WBRT. Risk factors for local recurrence are lower maximum radiation dose and a surgery-to-SRS delay longer than 3 weeks. Outcomes were not worse for patients who had undergone prior WBRT and subtotal or piecemeal resections. Pending the results of prospective randomized controlled trials, the authors' study supports the safety and efficacy of adjuvant SRS after resection of brain metastasis. SRS should be performed as early as possible, ideally within 3 weeks of the surgery.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations89
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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