Patient preference for stereotactic radiosurgery plus or minus whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of brain metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal management for limited, non-resectable brain metastases is an evolving area in radiation oncology. Previous data show no difference in survival between stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and SRS plus whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Neurocognitive toxicities, treatment duration and tumor recurrence differ and therefore patient values play an important role in decision making. We aim to elicit patient preferences and understand factors important in deciding which treatment to pursue. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 2 centers in North America. Eligibility criteria included ≤4 intracranial lesions and physician judgment that either treatment was appropriate. Those with prior treatment for brain metastases were excluded. A decision board presented the treatments and summarized evidence regarding disease control and toxicity. An option to either take an active or passive role was offered. If taking a passive role, treatment was left to the clinician. If an active role was taken, patients made a decision about whether to receive SRS alone, or in combination with WBRT. A debriefing questionnaire to rank important factors in decision making was then completed. Descriptive statistics summarized findings. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were enrolled. The majority of patients were male (15/23; 65.2%), had primary lung cancer (15/23; 65.2%) and the mean age was 65.5 years. All patients took an active role in deciding their treatment. The majority of patients (21/23) chose to receive SRS alone. The highest ranked factors were quality of life (9.4/10), ability to maintain functional independence (9.3/10) and influence of treatment on survival (9.2/10). The least important factor was number of trips required to the cancer center (5.0/10). CONCLUSIONS: A patient centered approach to decision making in brain metastases is feasible. Most patients will take an active role in management if relevant information is presented in a clear, understandable manner. When informed, most patients prefer SRS alone rather than SRS + WBRT and identify quality of life, ability to maintain functional independence and influence of treatment on survival as highly important factors in making their decision.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".