Stereotactic radiosurgery and local control of brain metastases from triple-negative breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective treatment for intracranial metastatic disease, but its role in triple-negative breast cancer requires further study. Herein, the authors report overall survival (OS) and local tumor control in a multiinstitutional cohort with triple-negative breast cancer metastases treated with SRS. METHODS: Patients treated from 2010 to 2019 at 9 institutions were included in this retrospective study if they had biopsy-proven triple-negative breast cancer with intracranial metastatic lesions treated with SRS. Patients were excluded if they had undergone prior SRS, whole-brain radiation therapy, or resection of the metastatic lesions. A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine OS, local control, and treatment efficacy. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients with 315 treated lesions were assessed. Patients had a median Karnofsky Performance Status of 80 (IQR 70-90) and age of 57 years (IQR 48-67 years). Most treated patients had 5 or fewer intracranial lesions, with 34% of patients having a single lesion. Treated lesions were small, having a median volume owf 0.11 cm3 (IQR 0.03-0.60 cm3). Patients were treated with a median margin dose of 18 Gy (IQR 18-20 Gy) to the median 71% isodose line (IQR 50%-84%). Overall, patients had a 1-year OS of 43% and 2-year OS of 20%. Most patients (88%) were followed until death, by which time local tumor progression had occurred in only 7% of cases. Furthermore, 76% of the lesions demonstrated regression. Tumor volume was correlated with local tumor progression (p = 0.012). SRS was very well tolerated, and only 3 patients (5%) developed symptomatic radiation necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: SRS is a safe and efficacious treatment for well-selected patients with triple-negative breast cancer, especially for those with a favorable performance status and small- to moderate-volume metastatic lesions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".