Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Postoperative Metastatic Surgical Cavities: A Critical Review and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this critical review is to summarize the literature specific to single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and multiple-fraction stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) for postoperative brain metastases resection cavities and to present practice recommendations on behalf of the ISRS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Medline and Embase databases were used to apply the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach to search for manuscripts reporting SRS/SRT outcomes for postoperative brain metastases tumor bed resection cavities with a search end date of July 20, 2018. Prospective studies, consensus guidelines, and retrospective series that included exclusively postoperative brain metastases and had at minimum 100 patients were considered eligible. RESULTS: are associated with rates of local control ranging from 60.5% to 91% (median, 80.5%). Randomized data suggest improved local control with single-fraction SRS compared with observation and improved cognitive outcomes compared with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). The toxicity of SRS/SRT in the postoperative setting was limited and is reviewed herein. CONCLUSIONS: Although randomized data raise concern for poorer local control after resection cavity SRS than WBRT, these findings may be driven by factors such as conservative prescription doses used in the SRS arm. Retrospective studies suggest high rates of local control after single-fraction SRS and hypofractionated SRT for postoperative brain metastases. With a superior neurocognitive profile and no survival disadvantage to withholding WBRT, the ISRS recommends SRS as first-line treatment for eligible postoperative patients. Emerging data suggest that fractionated SRT may provide superior local control compared with single-fraction SRS, in particular, for large tumor cavity volumes/diameters and potentially for patients with a preoperative diameter greater than 2.5 cm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".