MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401690696 · doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000001115

Impact of the Novel MRI Contrast Agent Gadopiclenol on Radiotherapy Decision Making in Patients With Brain Metastases

2024· article· en· W4401690696 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo R. Sarria, Jens Fleckenstein, Miriam Eckl, Florian Stieler, Arne Mathias Ruder, Martin Bendszus, Leonard Christopher Schmeel, David Koch, Andreas Feißt, Marco Essig, Frederik Wenz, Frank A. Giordano

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Radiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContrast (vision)Radiation therapyRadiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of gadopiclenol versus gadobenate dimeglumine contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on decision-making between whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for treatment of brain metastases (BMs). METHODS: Patients with BMs underwent 2 separate MRI examinations in a double-blind crossover phase IIb comparative study between the MRI contrast agents gadopiclenol and gadobenate dimeglumine, both administered at 0.1 mmol/kg. The imaging data of a single site using identical MRI scanners and protocols were included in this post hoc analysis. Patients with 1 or more BMs in any of both MRIs were subjected to target volume delineation for treatment planning. Two radiation oncologists contoured all visible lesions and decided upon SRS or WBRT, according to the number of metastases. For each patient, SRS or WBRT treatment plans were calculated for both MRIs, considering the gross target volume (GTV) as the contrast-enhancing aspects of the tumor. Mean GTVs and volume of healthy brain exposed to 12 Gy (V 12 ), as well as Dice similarity coefficient scores, were obtained. The Spearman rank (ρ) correlation was additionally calculated for assessing linear differences. Three different expert radiation oncologists blindly rated the contrast enhancement for contouring purposes. RESULTS: Thirteen adult patients were included. Gadopiclenol depicted additional BM as compared with gadobenate dimeglumine in 7 patients (54%). Of a total of 63 identified metastatic lesions in both MRI sets, 3 subgroups could be defined: A, 48 (24 pairs) detected equal GTVs visible in both modalities; B, 13 GTVs only visible in the gadopiclenol set (mean ± SD, 0.16 ± 0.37 cm 3 ); and C, 2 GTVs only visible in the gadobenate dimeglumine set (mean ± SD, 0.01 ± 0.01). Treatment indication was changed for 2 (15%) patients, 1 from no treatment to SRS and for 1 from SRS to WBRT. The mean GTVs and brain V 12 were comparable between both agents ( P = 0.694, P = 0.974). The mean Dice similarity coefficient was 0.70 ± 0.14 (ρ = 0.82). According to the readers, target volume definition was improved in 63.9% of cases (23 of 36 evaluations) with gadopiclenol and 22.2% with gadobenate dimeglumine (8 of 36), whereas equivalence was obtained in 13.9% (5 of 36). CONCLUSIONS: Gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI improved BM detection and characterization, with a direct impact on radiotherapy treatment decision between WBRT and SRS. Additionally, a more exact target delineation and planning could be performed with gadopiclenol. A prospective evaluation in a larger cohort of patients is required to confirm these findings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative RadiologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207