PS1 - 140 The Effect of Timing of Stereotactic Radiosurgery Treatment of Melanoma Brain Metastases Treated with Ipilimumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melanoma represents the third most common cause of CNS metastases. Immunotherapy has evolved as a treatment option for patients with stage-IV melanoma. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) also elicits an immune response within the brain and may interact with immunotherapy. We report a cohort of patients treated for brain metastasis with immunotherapy and evaluate the effect of SRS timing on the intracranial response. Methods: All consecutively treated melanoma patients receiving Ipilimumab and SRS for their brain metastasis were included in the retrospective analysis. 46 patients harboring 232 brain metastases were reviewed. The median clinical follow-up was 7.9 months (3-42.6). Median age was 63 years (24.3-83.6). 32 patients received SRS before or during ipilimumab cycles (Group-A) whereas 14 patients received SRS after the ipilimumab treatment (Group-B). Radiographic and clinical responses were assessed at approximately 3 months intervals after SRS. Results: The two cohorts were comparable in pertinent pre-treatment aspects with the exception of SRS timing relative to ipilimumab. Local recurrence free duration (LRFD) was significantly longer in Group-A patients (19.6 months, range 1.1-34.7 months) as compared to group-B patients (3 months, range 0.4-20.4 months), respectively (p=0.002). Post-SRS perilesional edema was more significant in Group-A. Conclusions: The effect of SRS and ipilimumab in attaining LRFD seems greater when SRS is performed before or during ipilimumab treatments. The timing of immunotherapy and SRS may effect LRFD and post-radiosurgical edema. The interactions between immunotherapy and SRS warrant further investigation so as to optimize the therapeutic benefits and mitigate the risks associated with multimodality, targeted therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".