MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[Efficacy and Safety of Radiotherapy Combined with Immunotherapy
for Brain Metastases from Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis].

2022· review· en· W4307428651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lijuan Xu, Yingtai Chen, Mei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLung cancerMeta-analysisOncologyRadiation therapyImmunotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IT) is recommended for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while brain radiotherapy (RT) is the mainstream treatment for patients with brain metastases (BM). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of combined use of RT and IT. METHODS: The date was limited to May 1, 2022, and literature searches were carried out in CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Heterogeneity was judged using the I2 test and P value. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles involving 2,636 patients were included. In the comparison of RT+IT group and RT group, no significant difference was found in overall survival (OS) (HR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.52-1.38, I2=73.9%, Pheterogeneity=0.001) and intracranial distance control (DBC) (HR=1.04, 95%CI: 0.55-1.05, I2=80.5%, Pheterogeneity<0.001), but the intracranial control (LC) in the RT+IT group was better than the RT group (HR=0.46, 95%CI: 0.22-0.94, I2=22.2%, Pheterogeneity=0.276), and the risk of radiation necrosis/treatment-related imaging changes (RN/TRIC) was higher than RT (HR=1.72, 95%CI: 1.12-2.65, I2=40.2%, Pheterogeneity=0.153). In the comparison between the RT+IT concurrent group and the sequential group, no significant difference was found in OS (HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.27-1.43, I2=74.7%, Pheterogeneity=0.003) and RN/TRIC (HR=1.72, 95%CI: 0.85-3.47, I2=0%, Pheterogeneity=0.388) was different between the two groups. However, DBC in the concurrent treatment group was better than that in the sequential treatment group (HR=0.77, 95%CI: 0.62-0.96, I2=80.5%, Pheterogeneity<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RT combined with IT does not improve the OS of NSCLC patients with BM, but also increases the risk of RN/TRIC. In addition, compared with sequential RT and IT, concurrent RT and IT improved the efficacy of DBC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.069
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207