MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases

2018· review· en· W3015469897 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyWhole brain radiotherapyMedicineBrain metastasisBrain cancerBrain tumorOncologyInternal medicineMetastasisCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background This is an update to the review published in the Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 4). It is estimated that 20% to 40% of people with cancer will develop brain metastases during the course of their illness. The burden of brain metastases impacts quality and length of survival. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) given alone or in combination with other therapies to adults with newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase to May 2017 and the National Cancer Institute Physicians Data Query for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing WBRT versus other treatments for adults with newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and abstracted information in accordance with Cochrane methods. Main results We added 10 RCTs to this updated review. The review now includes 54 published trials (45 fully published reports, four abstracts, and five subsets of data from previously published RCTs) involving 11,898 participants. Lower biological WBRT doses versus control The hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) with lower biological WBRT doses as compared with control (3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions) was 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01; moderate‐certainty evidence) in favour of control. The HR for neurological function improvement (NFI) was 1.74 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.84; P = 0.03; moderate‐certainty evidence) in favour of control fractionation. Higher biological WBRT doses versus control The HR for OS with higher biological WBRT doses as compared with control (3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; P = 0.65; moderate‐certainty evidence). The HR for NFI was 1.14 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.42; P = 0.23; moderate‐certainty evidence). WBRT and radiosensitisers The addition of radiosensitisers to WBRT did not confer additional benefit for OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.12; P = 0.12; moderate‐certainty evidence) or for brain tumour response rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.11; P = 0.22; high‐certainty evidence). Radiosurgery and WBRT versus WBRT alone The HR for OS with use of WBRT and radiosurgery boost as compared with WBRT alone for selected participants was 0.61 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.39; P = 0.24; moderate‐certainty evidence). For overall brain control at one year, the HR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.60; P < 0.0001; high‐certainty evidence) favouring the WBRT and radiosurgery boost group. Radiosurgery alone versus radiosurgery and WBRT The HR for local brain control was 2.73 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.99; P < 0.00001; high‐certainty evidence)favouring the addition of WBRT to radiosurgery. The HR for distant brain control was 2.34 (95% CI 1.73 to 3.18; P < 0.00001; high‐certainty evidence) favouring WBRT and radiosurgery. The HR for OS was 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.25; P = 0.99; moderate‐certainty evidence). Two trials reported worse neurocognitive outcomes and one trial reported worse quality of life outcomes when WBRT was added to radiosurgery. We could not pool data from trials related to chemotherapy, optimal supportive care (OSC), molecular targeted agents, neurocognitive protective agents, and hippocampal sparing WBRT. However, one trial reported no differences in quality‐adjusted life‐years for selected participants with brain metastases from non‐small‐cell lung cancer randomised to OSC and WBRT versus OSC alone. Authors' conclusions None of the trials with altered higher biological WBRT dose‐fractionation schemes reported benefit for OS, NFI, or symptom control compared with standard care. However, OS and NFI were worse for lower biological WBRT dose‐fractionation schemes than for standard dose schedules. The addition of WBRT to radiosurgery improved local and distant brain control in selected people with brain metastases, but data show worse neurocognitive outcomes and no differences in OS. Selected people with multiple brain metastases from non‐small‐cell lung cancer may show no difference in OS when OSC is given and WBRT is omitted. Use of radiosensitisers, chemotherapy, or molecular targeted agents in conjunction with WBRT remains experimental. Further trials are needed to evaluate the use of neurocognitive protective agents and hippocampal sparing with WBRT. As well, future trials should examine homogeneous participants with brain metastases with focus on prognostic features and molecular markers.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.267 · 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