32 A population-based study of melanoma brain metastasis treatment: Has new progress in systemic therapy and new technology in radiotherapy improved patient outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Outcomes for patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) have been poor. New radiotherapy technologies and systemic agents have improved outcomes. Outcomes have rarely been studied at the population-level. We undertook a population-based study investigating changes in management and outcome for patients with MBM in Ontario from 2007-2016. Methods: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients treated for MBM in Ontario from 2007-2016. Melanoma was identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry. Treatments and outcome were described by era (2007-2009, 2010-2012, 2013-2016). Treatment with cranial radiotherapy and drugs were defined using Cancer Care Ontario data and supplemented by physician billing and drug reimbursement data. Neurosurgery was identified using CIHI hospital records. Time to event was investigated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: From January 2007-June 2016, 1096 patients with MBM were treated. Whole brain radiation therapy was the first brain-directed treatment in 75.5% of patients in 2007-2009, dropping to 52.0% for 2013-2016. Patients receiving stereotactic radiation or other conformal techniques as the first brain treatment increased from 3.4% in 2007-2009 to 21.3% 2013-2016. Use of BRAF/MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy increased: <2.0% in 2007-2009 to 40.9% 2013-2016. One-year and two-year overall survival (OS) following first brain-directed treatment was greater in 2013-2016: 21.8% at one year and 13.8% after two years (Wilcoxon p=0.001). This compared to 12.3% and 6.4% 2007-2009, and 10.7% and 5.5% 2010-2012. Conclusion: The advent of new radiation technologies and systemic treatments for MBM was associated with increased survival and greater avoidance of whole brain radiotherapy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".