Comparative Survival in Patients with Brain Metastases from Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated before and after Implementation of Radiosurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Survival after a diagnosis of brain metastasis in non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) is generally poor. We previously reported a median survival of approximately 4 months in a cohort of patients treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (wbrt). Since that time, we implemented a program of stereotactic radiosurgery (srs). In the present study, we examined survival and prognostic factors in a consecutive cohort of patients after the introduction of the srs program. Methods: Data from a retrospective review of 167 nsclc patients with brain metastasis referred to a tertiary cancer centre during 2010–2012 were compared with data from a prior cohort of 91 patients treated during 2005–2007 (“pre-srs cohort”). Results: Median overall survival from the date of diagnosis of brain metastasis (4.3 months in the srs cohort vs. 3.9 months in the pre-srs cohort, p = 0.74) was not significantly different in the cohorts. The result was similar when the no-treatment group was excluded from the srs cohort. Within the srs cohort only, significant differences is overall survival were observed between treatment groups (srs, wbrt plus srs, wbrt, and no treatment), with improved survival being observed on univariate and multivariate analysis for patients receiving srs compared with patients receiving wbrt alone (p < 0.001). Conclusions: No improvement in survival was observed for nsclc patients with brain metastases after the implementation of srs. Selected patients (younger age, female sex, good performance status, fewer brain metastases) treated with srs appeared to demonstrate improved survival. However, those observations might also reflect better patient selection for srs or a greater tendency to offer those patients systemic therapy in addition to srs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".