MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986254095 · doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0061-8

The role of surgical resection in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

2009· review· en· W1986254095 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven N. Kalkanis, Douglas Kondziolka, Laurie E. Gaspar, Stuart H. Burri, Anthony L. Asher, Charles Cobbs, Mario Ammirati, Paula D. Robinson, David W. Andrews, Jay S. Loeffler, Michael McDermott, Minesh P. Mehta, Tom Mikkelsen, Jeffrey J. Olson, Nina A. Paleologos, Roy A. Patchell, Timothy C. Ryken, Mark E. Linskey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Oncology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgeryGuidelineBrain metastasisSurgical resectionModalitiesSurgeryResectionMetastasisRadiation therapyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. Recommendations Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below. Question Does surgical resection in addition to WBRT improve outcomes when compared with WBRT alone? Target population This recommendation applies to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection; however, the recommendation does not apply to relatively radiosensitive tumors histologies (i.e., small cell lung cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, germ cell tumors and multiple myeloma). Recommendation Surgical resection plus WBRT versus WBRT alone Level 1 Class I evidence supports the use of surgical resection plus post-operative WBRT, as compared to WBRT alone, in patients with good performance status (functionally independent and spending less than 50% of time in bed) and limited extra-cranial disease. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for patients with poor performance scores, advanced systemic disease, or multiple brain metastases.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations416
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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