Phase 3 Trials of Stereotactic Radiosurgery With or Without Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy for 1 to 4 Brain Metastases: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with or without whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for patients presenting with 1 to 4 brain metastases. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Three trials were identified through a literature search, and IPD were obtained. Outcomes of interest were survival, local failure, and distant brain failure. The treatment effect was estimated after adjustments for age, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) score, number of brain metastases, and treatment arm. RESULTS: A total of 364 of the pooled 389 patients met eligibility criteria, of whom 51% were treated with SRS alone and 49% were treated with SRS plus WBRT. For survival, age was a significant effect modifier (P=.04) favoring SRS alone in patients ≤50 years of age, and no significant differences were observed in older patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) for patients 35, 40, 45, and 50 years of age were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.90), 0.52 (95% CI = 0.29-0.92), 0.58 (95% CI = 0.35-0.95), and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.42-0.99), respectively. Patients with a single metastasis had significantly better survival than those who had 2 to 4 metastases. For distant brain failure, age was a significant effect modifier (P=.043), with similar rates in the 2 arms for patients ≤50 of age; otherwise, the risk was reduced with WBRT for patients >50 years of age. Patients with a single metastasis also had a significantly lower risk of distant brain failure than patients who had 2 to 4 metastases. Local control significantly favored additional WBRT in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients ≤50 years of age, SRS alone favored survival, in addition, the initial omission of WBRT did not impact distant brain relapse rates. SRS alone may be the preferred treatment for this age group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".