MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273808592 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov102

Controversies in neuro-oncology: role of whole-brain radiation therapy in the treatment of newly diagnosed brain metastases

2015· article· en· W2273808592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Y. Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyRadiation oncologyOncologyInternal medicineBrain tumorPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As therapies for systemic cancers improve and patients survive longer, the incidence of brain metastases is increasing. Current therapies include varying combinations of surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), and in a small subset of patients, systemic therapy. The use of SRS to treat brain metastases has been one of the major successes in neuro-oncology, providing effective local control of even radioresistant brain metastases. Several studies have compared the outcomes of patients with a limited number of brain metastases treated with surgery or radiosurgery alone, with the addition of WBRT. – 4 These studies, which usually included heterogeneous tumor histologies and varying extent of systemic disease, have generally shown improved intracranial control with the addition of WBRT, but no significant improvement in overall survival, and an increased risk of neurocognitive impairment. Most recently, at the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, Brown et al presented the results of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) (Alliance) N0574 study, a phase III trial comparing SRS+WBRT to SRS alone in patients with 1–3 brain metastases. This study for the first time used decline in cognitive function at 3 months as the primary endpoint. Cognitive deterioration at 3 months was significantly more frequent in the WBRT+SRS group than the SRS alone group, involving especially immediate recall, memory, and verbal fluency. As with prior studies, intracranial disease control was improved with WBRT but there was no improvement in overall survival. This study adds to the growing body of literature addressing this issue. Nonetheless, there is currently no consensus on the value of WBRT and the optimal management of patients with brain metastases remains a dilemma that confronts clinicians looking after these patients. In this issue of Neuro-Oncology, Dr Arjun Sahgal from the University of Toronto discusses the data in favor of omitting WBRT from patients with newly-diagnosed brain metastases, while Dr. Minesh Mehta from the University of Maryland provides the counter-argument of including WBRT for these patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207