MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413105795 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdaf123.110

RMTD-04 THE INCIDENCE OF BRAIN METASTASES (BRM) AS A FIRST SITE OF METASTATIC RECURRENCE AMONG PATIENTS WITH EARLY-STAGE BREAST CANCER (BC): A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2025· review· en· W4413105795 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Pan, Xingshan Cao, Katarzyna J. Jerzak

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisInternal medicineCumulative incidenceOncologyBreast cancerMetastatic breast cancerCochrane LibrarySubgroup analysisStage (stratigraphy)CancerRandomized controlled trialCohortBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND In the pivotal KEYNOTE-522 and KATHERINE trials for patients with early-stage triple-negative (TN) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)+ BC, the incidence of BrM as a first site of metastatic recurrence ranged from 2.6% to 5.1%. However, the incidence of BrM as a first site of metastatic recurrence has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS A literature search was conducted using the MedLine, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from January 2000 to July 2024 using terms related to BC, BrM, and incidence. References of included studies and trials from the Early Breast Cancer Clinical Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analysis were also reviewed. The reported incidence of BrM and follow-up duration were extracted by BC subtype; random effects models were used to calculate pooled overall estimates for BrM incidence. RESULTS 3863 articles were compiled from which 36 studies met inclusion criteria; data from 24 retrospective studies, 4 prospective studies and 12 randomized trials were included for analysis. The incidence of BrM as a first site of metastatic relapse among patients with HER2+, TN, and hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2− BC was reported in 21, 11 and 6 studies, respectively. The pooled cumulative incidence of BrM was 3.1% for the TN (median follow-up, 55 months; range, 18.0–156.0 months), 2.4% for the HER2+ (median follow-up, 49 months; range, 26.9–93.0 months), and 0.70% for the HR+/HER2− subgroup (median follow-up, 72.7 months; range, 49.0–93.0 months). The corresponding incidences per 100 patient-years were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.54–1.11) for the TN, 0.48 (95% CI: 0.36–0.60) for the HER2+, and 0.04 (95% CI: 0.00–0.14) for the HR+/HER2− subgroup. CONCLUSION Given a low risk of BrM among patients with early-stage BC, efforts to identify clinical, pathological and genomic features associated with BrM development are warranted to identify “enrichment” cohorts for future BrM prevention trials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology AdvancesSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207