Response Assessment in Brain Metastases Managed by Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Reappraisal of the RANO-BM Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) are increasingly being treated using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Standardized response criteria are necessary to improve research and treatment protocols. This study's goal was to validate the RANO-BM criteria thresholds for tumor progression in a cohort of patients with brain metastases managed using SRS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated at least twice with SRS for brain metastases. Local progression, as defined by RANO-BM criteria, was compared to our multidisciplinary tumor board's treatment recommendation. A ROC curve was generated using varying diameter thresholds to assess the sensitivity and specificity of current RANO-BM criteria. RESULTS: 249 metastases in 67 patients were included in the analysis. RANO-BM criteria current progression thresholds yielded a sensitivity of 38%, a specificity of 95%, a positive predictive value of 71%, and a negative predictive value of 84% relative to our tumor board's treatment recommendation. Modified RANO-BM criteria using absolute diameter differences of 2.5 mm yielded a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 87%, a positive predictive value of 67% and a negative predictive value of 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Current RANO-BM criteria unreliably identifies clinically relevant tumor progression. The use of absolute diameter differences thresholds appears superior in our BM cohort.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".