MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306915041 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5049

Association of Long-term Outcomes With Stereotactic Radiosurgery vs Whole-Brain Radiotherapy for Resected Brain Metastasis

2022· article· en· W4306915041 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joshua D. Palmer, Brett Klamer, Karla V. Ballman, Paul D. Brown, Jane H. Cerhan, S. Keith Anderson, Xiomara W. Carrero, Anthony Whitton, Jeffrey Greenspoon, Ian F. Parney, Nadia N. Laack, Jonathan B. Ashman, Jean-Paul Bahary, Costas G. Hadjipanayis, James J. Urbanic, Fred G. Barker, Elana Farace, Deepak Khuntia, Caterina Giannini, Jan C. Buckner, Evanthia Galanis, David Roberge

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Brain metastasisRadiation therapyRandomizationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineOncologySurgeryMetastasisCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Long-term outcomes of radiotherapy are important in understanding the risks and benefits of therapies for patients with brain metastases. Objective: To determine how the use of postoperative whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is associated with quality of life (QOL), cognitive function, and intracranial tumor control in long-term survivors with 1 to 4 brain metastases. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial included 48 institutions in the US and Canada. Adult patients with 1 resected brain metastases but limited to those with 1 to 4 brain metastasis were eligible. Unresected metastases were treated with SRS. Long-term survivors were defined as evaluable patients who lived longer than 1 year from randomization. Patients were recruited between July 2011 and December 2015, and data were first analyzed in February 2017. For the present study, intracranial tumor control, cognitive deterioration, QOL, and cognitive outcomes were measured in evaluable patients who were alive at 12 months from randomization and reanalyzed in June 2017. Interventions: Stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intracranial tumor control, toxic effects, cognitive deterioration, and QOL. Results: Fifty-four patients (27 SRS arm, 27 WBRT arm; female to male ratio, 65% vs 35%) were included for analysis with a median follow-up of 23.8 months. Cognitive deterioration was less frequent with SRS (37%-60%) compared with WBRT (75%-91%) at all time points. More patients declined by 2 or more standard deviations (SDs) in 1 or more cognitive tests for WBRT compared with SRS at 3, 6, and 9 months (70% vs 22%, 46% vs 19%, and 50% vs 20%, respectively). A 2 SD decline in at least 2 cognitive tests was associated with worse 12-month QOL in emotional well-being, functional well-being, general, additional concerns, and total scores. Overall QOL and functional independence favored SRS alone for categorical change at all time points. Total intracranial control for SRS alone vs WBRT at 12 months was 40.7% vs 81.5% (difference, -40.7; 95% CI, -68.1% to -13.4%), respectively. Data were first analyzed in February 2017. Conclusions and Relevance: The use of SRS alone compared with WBRT resulted in less cognitive deterioration among long-term survivors. The association of late cognitive deterioration with WBRT was clinically meaningful. A significant decline in cognition (2 SD) was associated with overall QOL. However, intracranial tumor control was improved with WBRT. This study provides detailed insight into cognitive function over time in this patient population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01372774; ALLIANCE/CCTG: N107C/CEC.3 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology/Canadian Cancer Trials Group).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

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

Citations72
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207