ArticleRadiology and oncology2019
A new instrument for predicting survival of patients with cerebral metastases from breast cancer developed in a homogeneously treated cohort.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast Cancer Brain Metastasis: The Potential Role of MRI Beyond Current Clinical Applications.Cancer management and research · 2020Review
- The Results of Whole-brain Radiotherapy for Elderly Patients With Brain Metastases from Urinary Bladder Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Previous survival scores for breast cancer patients with cerebral metastases were developed in cohorts receiving heterogeneous treatments, which could have introduced selection biases. A new instrument (WBRT-30-BC) was created from 170 patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) alone with 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Methods Characteristics showing significant associations (p < 0.05) with overall survival (OS) or a trend (p < 0.08) on multivariate analysis were used for the WBRT-30-BC. For each characteristic, 6-month OS rates were divided by 10. These scoring points were added for each patient (patient scores). The WBRT-30-BC was compared to the diagnosis- specific graded prognostic assessment (DS-GPA) classification and Rades-Score for breast cancer regarding positive predictive values (PPVs) to identify patients dying within 6 months and patients surviving at least 6 months following WBRT. Results On multivariate analysis, Karnofsky performance score (KPS) was significant (risk ratio [RR]: 2.45, p < 0.001). In addition, extra-cerebral metastatic disease (RR: 1.52, p = 0.071) and time between breast cancer diagnosis and WBRT (RR: 1.37, p = 0.070) showed a trend. Based on these three characteristics, four predictive groups were designed: 7-9, 10-12, 13-15 and 16 points. Six-month OS rates were 8%, 41%, 68% and 100% (p < 0.001). PPVs to identify patients dying within 6 months were 92% (WBRT-30-BC), 84% (DS-GPA) and 92% (Rades-Score). PPVs to identify patients surviving for at least 6 months were 100% (WBRT-30-BC), 74% (DS-GPA) and 68% (Rades-Score). Conclusions The WBRT-30-BC appeared very accurate in predicting death ≤ 6 months and survival ≥ 6 months of breast cancer patients receiving WBRT. It was superior to previous instruments in predicting survival ≥ 6 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.