MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622575600 · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2017.05.008

The impact of different stereotactic radiation therapy regimens for brain metastases on local control and toxicity

2017· article· en· W2622575600 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Jimenez, Brian M. Alexander, Anand Mahadevan, Andrzej Niemierko, S. Rajakesari, Nils D. Arvold, Scott Floyd, Kevin Oh, Jay S. Loeffler, Helen A. Shih

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Radiation Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-CentreCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStereotactic radiation therapyToxicityRadiosurgeryRenal cell carcinomaCumulative incidenceUnivariate analysisRadiation therapyRetrospective cohort studyBrain metastasisIncidence (geometry)Adverse effectInternal medicineNuclear medicineCancerMultivariate analysisMetastasisCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) enables focused, short course, high dose per fraction radiation delivery to brain tumors that are less ideal for single fraction treatment because of size, shape, or close proximity to sensitive structures. We sought to identify optimal SRT treatment regimens for maximizing local control while minimizing morbidity. Methods and materials We performed a retrospective review of patients treated with SRT for solid brain metastases using variable dose schedules between 2001 and 2011 at 3 academic hospitals. Endpoints included (1) local control, (2) acute toxicity (Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0), and (3) symptomatic radionecrosis. Kaplan-Meier and a competing risks methodology were used to estimate the actuarial rate of local failure and assess the association of clinical and treatment covariates with time to local failure. Results A total of 156 patients was identified. Common tumor histologies included breast (21%), non-small cell lung (32%), melanoma (22%), small cell lung (9%), and renal cell carcinoma (6%). The majority of lesions were supratentorial (57%). Median target volume was 3.99 mL (range, 0.04-58.42). Median total SRT dose was 25 Gy (range, 12-36), median fractional dose was 5 Gy (range, 2.5-11), and median number of fractions was 5 (range, 2-10). Cumulative incidence of local progression at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months was 11%, 22%, 29%, 34%, and 36%. Total prescription dose was the only factor significantly associated with time to local progression on univariate ( P = .02) and multivariable analysis ( P = .01, adjusted hazards ratio, 0.87). Five patients experienced seizures within 10 days of SRT and 5 patients developed radionecrosis. All patients with documented radionecrosis received prior radiation to the index lesion. Conclusions Our series of SRT for brain metastases found total prescription dose to be the only factor associated with local control. Both acute and long-term toxicity events from SRT were modest.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Radiation OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207