Brain metastases in the setting of stable extracranial disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2022 Background: Intracranial metastatic disease (IMD) is a life-altering complication for many patients with cancer. Improvements in systemic therapies have transformed the epidemiology of IMD, with some patients presenting with IMD in the context of stable extracranial disease (IMD-SECD). Among patients with metastases in other sites with similarly stable systemic disease, surgical resection and targeted therapy can result in long-term disease control and extended overall survival (OS), yet little is known about the clinical outcomes for patients with IMD-SECD. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources up to June 21, 2021 for studies reporting brain metastasis (BrM) with controlled extracranial disease (ECD) as well as IMD-SECD secondary to any primary cancer (criteria: presence of BrM and ≤2 extracranial metastatic sites, with no prior second-line chemotherapy and second-line brain-directed therapy). In studies comparing IMD-SECD and IMD patients, hazard ratios (HR) for OS and intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, while medians for OS were estimated from single-arm IMD-SECD studies based on distribution-free summary survival curves. Results: Of 1067 records identified, 68 studies involving 5325 patients with IMD-SECD were included. Patients with IMD-SECD had prolonged OS (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.44-2.59; n = 10 studies; n = 877 patients) and iPFS (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.31-1.92; n = 4 studies; n = 673 patients) compared with IMD patients. Subgroup analysis of patients with BrM and controlled versus uncontrolled ECD found prolonged OS with controlled ECD (HR 2.46; 95% CI, 1.36-4.44; n = 4 studies; n = 135 patients). Pooled median OS for all IMD-SECD patients was 20.85 months (mo) (95% CI, 16.35-25.98; n = 27 studies; n = 2159 patients). Stratification by primary cancer type showed median OS 20.18 mo (95% CI, 10.43-38.20; n = 2 studies; n = 109 patients) and 27.46 mo (95% CI, 18.27-49.66; n = 13 studies; n = 497 patients) for patients with IMD-SECD secondary to breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with IMD-SECD demonstrate prolonged OS and iPFS compared with patients with IMD, who may have more extensive systemic disease. Our results suggest that patients with IMD-SECD may represent a distinct subpopulation of patients with IMD with a uniquely favourable prognosis. It is possible that aggressive and timely treatment may significantly prolong survival for these patients. Future prospective trials should aim to investigate the efficacy of current treatment regimens in patients with IMD-SECD to further clarify optimal treatment pathways in this unique population of patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".