MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383872827 · doi:10.21037/apm-22-1276

Emergent radiotherapy for brain and leptomeningeal metastases: a narrative review

2023· review· en· W4383872827 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew B. Barbour, Peter Zaki, Tresa McGranahan, Vyshak Alva Venur, Balamurugan Vellayappan, Joshua D. Palmer, Lia M. Halasz, Jonathan T. Yang, Molly Blau, Yolanda D. Tseng, Samuel T. Chao, John H. Suh, Matthew Foote, Kristin J. Redmond, Stephanie E. Combs, Eric L. Chang, Arjun Sahgal, Simon S. Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Palliative Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyNarrative reviewSystemic therapyMultidisciplinary approachPresentation (obstetrics)CancerIntensive care medicineMedical physicsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: As novel systemic therapies allow patients to live longer with cancer, the risk of developing central nervous system (CNS) metastases increases and providers will more frequently encounter emergent presentation of brain metastases (BM) and leptomeningeal metastases (LM). Management of these metastases requires appropriate work-up and well-coordinated multidisciplinary care. We set out to perform a review of emergent radiotherapy (RT) for CNS metastases, specifically focusing on BM and LM. METHODS: We review the appropriate pathways for workup and initial management of BM and LM, while reviewing the literature supporting emergent treatment of these entities with surgery, systemic anti-cancer therapy, and RT. To inform this narrative review, literature searches in PubMed and Google Scholar were conducted, with preference given to articles employing modern RT techniques, when applicable. Due to the paucity of high-quality evidence for management of BM and LM in the emergent setting, discussion was supplemented by the authors' expert commentary. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: This work highlights the importance of surgical evaluation, particularly for patients presenting with significant mass effect, hemorrhagic metastases, or increased intracranial pressure. We review the rare situations where emergent initiation of systemic anti-cancer therapy is indicated. When defining the role of RT, we review factors guiding selection of appropriate modality, treatment volume, and dose-fractionation. Generally, 2D- or 3D-conformal treatment techniques prescribed as 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in 5 fractions, should be employed in the emergent setting. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BM and LM present from a diverse array of clinical situations, requiring well-coordinated multidisciplinary management, and there is a paucity of high-quality evidence guiding such management decisions. This narrative review aims to more thoroughly prepare providers for the challenging situation of emergent management of BM and LM.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Palliative MedicineSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207