60. IDEAL TREATMENT REGIMEN FOR PATIENTS WITH ≥1 BRAIN METASTASIS FROM PRIMARY NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Brain metastases (BM) are common in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to assess the comparative effectiveness of treatments for BM from NSCLC. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL and references of key studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until October 2018. We also searched the Chinese databases Wanfang Data, Wanfang Med Online, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chongqing VIP Information for RCTs published until September 2019. Trials including > 10 patients were selected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and intracranial progression-free survival (PFS). We used a frequentist random-effects model for network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS Among 8798 abstracts, 106 RCTs (9452 patients) met inclusion criteria. Median sample size was 67 (range 25–554). All trials included adult patients with histologically proven NSCLC and >1 BM proven on CT/MRI. Of trials that reported performance status (e.g. ECOG or KPS, n=67), 63/67 excluded patients with non-favorable performance status. Interventions assessed included surgery, WBRT, SRS, targeted therapies (i.e. EGFR/ALK inhibitors), and chemotherapy. Compared to WBRT alone, several interventions demonstrated a statistically significant increase in median OS, including non-targeted chemotherapy + surgery (MD: 415.3 days, 95% CI: 31.3–799.4), WBRT + EGFRi (MD: 200.2 days, 95% CI:146.3–254.1), and EGFRi alone (MD: 169.7 days, 95% CI: 49.7–289.7). Among all interventions, only WBRT + EGFRi showed a significant improvement in median PFS (MD: 108.0 days, 95%CI: 48.5–167.5). CONCLUSIONS Our preliminary analyses indicate an OS and PFS benefit on the addition of EGFR inhibitors to WBRT for the treatment of BMs from NSCLC. Further analyses of hazard ratios for OS/PFS are underway, and subgroup analyses are planned. These data support the growing role of targeted therapies in the treatment of BMs, particularly in susceptible mutant tumours.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".