MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153022133 · doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0060-9

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

2009· review· en· W2153022133 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurie E. Gaspar, Minesh P. Mehta, Roy A. Patchell, Stuart H. Burri, Paula D. Robinson, Rachel Morris, Mario Ammirati, David W. Andrews, Anthony L. Asher, Charles Cobbs, Douglas Kondziolka, Mark E. Linskey, Jay S. Loeffler, Michael McDermott, Tom Mikkelsen, Jeffrey J. Olson, Nina A. Paleologos, Timothy C. Ryken, Steven N. Kalkanis

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Target population This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed single brain metastases 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. If WBRT is used, is there an optimal dosing/fractionation schedule? Target population This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed brain metastases. Recommendation Level 1 Class I evidence suggests that altered dose/fractionation schedules of WBRT do not result in significant differences in median survival, local control or neurocognitive outcomes when compared with “standard” WBRT dose/fractionation. (i.e., 30 Gy in 10 fractions or a biologically effective dose (BED) of 39 Gy10). If WBRT is used, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes? Target population This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed brain metastases. Recommendation Given the extremely limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support the choice of any particular dose/fractionation regimen based on histopathology. The following question is fully addressed in the surgery guideline paper within this series by Kalkanis 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 WBRT in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below. Does the addition of WBRT after surgical resection improve outcomes when compared with surgical resection alone? Target population This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed single brain metastases amenable to surgical resection. Recommendation 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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations303
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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