Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24436917›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base2013

Survival and recurrence for patients undergoing surgery of skull base intracranial metastases.

Kaisorn L Chaichana, Mariana Flores, Shami Acharya, Paul Sampognaro, Chetan Bettegowda, Daniele Rigamonti, Jon D Weingart, Alessandro Olivi, Gary L Gallia, Henry Brem and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Revisiting the Role of Surgical Resection for Brain Metastasis.Brain tumor research and treatment · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaisorn L ChaichanaDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mariana FloresDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Shami AcharyaDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Paul SampognaroDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Chetan BettegowdaDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Daniele RigamontiDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jon D WeingartDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Alessandro OliviDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Gary L GalliaDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Henry BremDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michael LimDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Alfredo Quinones-HinojosaDepartments of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ; Departments of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Laboratory, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins Medicine · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective Skull base metastases (SBMs) are rare lesions in close proximity to critical neural and vasculature structures. This rarity and complexity have led many to only offer nonsurgical therapies. The surgical outcomes for patients with SBM therefore remain unknown. Design Retrospective, comparison analyses. Setting Johns Hopkins Hospital. Participants All patients who underwent intracranial metastatic tumor surgery. Main Outcome Measure Survival and recurrence. Results Of the 708 patients who underwent intracranial metastatic tumor surgery, 29 (4%) had SBM: 3 (10%) involved the anterior skull base, 7 (24%) the sella, 6 (21%) the orbit, 2 (7%) the sphenoid wing, 3 (10%) the clivus, 4 (14%) the petrous bone, and 4 (14%) the paranasal sinuses. Following surgery, 6 (50%) had improvements in vision and 14 (88%) had improvement and/or maintenance of their cranial nerve symptoms. Three (10%), 0(0%), and 1(3%) developed a new motor, language, and vision deficit, respectively. There were no differences in median survival (10.0 versus 9.2 months, p = 0.48) and local progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.52), but there was improved distal PFS (p = 0.04) between patients with and without SBM. Conclusions Patients with SBM are relatively rare. These patients can tolerate surgery with minimal morbidity and mortality, and they have similar prognoses to patients without SBM.

Indexed as

metastatic brain tumorrecurrenceskull basesurgerysurvival

Identifiers

PMID24436917
PMCPMC3715603
OpenAlexW2011588333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.