MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968684517 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdz014.101

RADI-08. A SURVEY BASED STUDY OF BRAIN METASTASES MANAGEMENT FOR PATIENTS WITH NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCERS OR MELANOMA

2019· article· en· W2968684517 on OpenAlexaff
Chin Heng Fong, Natasha B. Leighl, Marcus O. Butler, Mark Doherty, Tim J. Kruser, David Shultz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgerySystemic therapyMelanomaOncologyInternal medicineStereotactic radiation therapyImmunotherapyRadiation therapyClinical trialCancerCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for 1–4 brain metastases (BrM) is stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), whereas whole brain radiation remains the standard treatment for extensive BrM, and surgical resection is appropriate in certain scenarios. Some newer systemic therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy have impressive CNS activity and are used by some practitioners either alone or in combination with other modalities as first-line treatment for BrM. We conducted a survey to ascertain current real-world practices for the treatment of BrM from NSCLC and melanoma. OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to assess practice patterns of oncologists who treat BrM from NSCLC or melanoma. We also investigated the extent to which various clinical factors influence decision making. METHODOLOGY: We created 2 sets of surveys: one for Medical-/Clinical-/Neuro- oncologists and another for Radiation oncologists/Neurosurgeons. Surveys were conducted online or on-line. Following administration, data was tabulated and analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s exact test. RESULTS: Of 361 respondents, 250 were Radiation oncologists/Neurosurgeons, and 111 were Medical-/Clinical-/Neuro- oncologists. For patients with 1–3 brain lesions, all < 2cm, 34% of respondents recommended systemic therapy alone as first-line treatment. In contrast, only 15% recommend systemic therapy alone for >9 lesions, at least one > 2cm. Medical-/Clinical-/Neuro- oncologists were more likely to recommend systemic therapy alone compared to Radiation oncologists/ Neurosurgeons for 1–3 lesions, all < 2cm (53% vs. 28%, p< .0001). For patients with > 9 BrM, one >2cm diameter, Medical-/Clinical-/Neuro- oncologists were not significantly more likely to recommend systemic therapy alone (20% vs 13%, p=.11). DISCUSSION: Our results reveal that significant numbers of physicians recommend systemic therapy alone as first-line therapy in BrM and that management decisions correlate with a physician’s type of practice. These findings underscore the need for prospective clinical trials to direct appropriate BrM management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology AdvancesSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207