Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31605786›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2020

Nodular Leptomeningeal Disease-A Distinct Pattern of Recurrence After Postresection Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: A Multi-institutional Study of Interobserver Reliability.

Brandon E Turner, Roshan S Prabhu, Stuart H Burri, Paul D Brown, Erqi L Pollom, Michael T Milano, Stephanie E Weiss, Michael Iv, Nancy Fischbein, Hany Soliman and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Systemic Therapy for Melanoma Brain and Leptomeningeal Metastases.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Brandon E TurnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California.
Roshan S PrabhuSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, North Carolina; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Stuart H BurriSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, North Carolina; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Paul D BrownDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Erqi L PollomDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California.
Michael T MilanoUniversity of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Stephanie E WeissFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Michael IvDepartment of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Nancy FischbeinDepartment of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Hany SolimanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Simon S LoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Samuel T ChaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Brett W CoxDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York, New York.
James D MurphyDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California.
Gordon LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Melanie Hayden GephartDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Seema NagpalDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Banu AtalarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Melissa AzoulayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada.
Reena ThomasDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Gayle TillmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ben Y DurkeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, SwedishAmerican, Rockford, Illinois.
Jennifer L ShahDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Scott G SoltysDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California. Electronic address: sgsoltys@stanford.edu.

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical & Translational Education and Research (Spectrum)UL1TR003142 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI O'HARA, RUTH M · 2019 to 2023
$45.0M
Spectrum Stanford Center for clinical and Translational Research and EducationUL1TR001085 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CULLEN, MARK RICHARD, GREENBERG, HARRY BERNARD · 2013 to 2017
$37.1M
Tumor DNA in CSF and novel modeling decode breast cancer - brain metastasesK08NS091527 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HAYDEN GEPHART, MELANIE · 2016 to 2020
$928k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001085NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003142NINDS NIH HHS K08 NS091527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor brain metastases, surgical resection with postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery is an emerging standard of care. Postoperative cavity stereotactic radiosurgery is associated with a specific, underrecognized pattern of intracranial recurrence, herein termed nodular leptomeningeal disease (nLMD), which is distinct from classical leptomeningeal disease. We hypothesized that there is poor consensus regarding the definition of LMD, and that a formal, self-guided training module will improve interrater reliability (IRR) and validity in diagnosing LMD. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two physicians at 16 institutions, including 15 physicians with central nervous system expertise, completed a 2-phase survey that included magnetic resonance imaging and treatment information for 30 patients. In the "pretraining" phase, physicians labeled cases using 3 patterns of recurrence commonly reported in prospective studies: local recurrence (LR), distant parenchymal recurrence (DR), and LMD. After a self-directed training module, participating physicians completed the "posttraining" phase and relabeled the 30 cases using the 4 following labels: LR, DR, classical leptomeningeal disease, and nLMD.

resultsIRR increased 34% after training (Fleiss' Kappa K = 0.41 to K = 0.55, P < .001). IRR increased most among non-central nervous system specialists (+58%, P < .001). Before training, IRR was lowest for LMD (K = 0.33). After training, IRR increased across all recurrence subgroups and increased most for LMD (+67%). After training, ≥27% of cases initially labeled LR or DR were later recognized as nLMD.

conclusionsThis study highlights the large degree of inconsistency among clinicians in recognizing nLMD. Our findings demonstrate that a brief self-guided training module distinguishing nLMD can significantly improve IRR across all patterns of recurrence, and particularly in nLMD. To optimize outcomes reporting, prospective trials in brain metastases should incorporate central imaging review and investigator training.

Indexed as

RadiosurgerySelf-Directed Learning as TopicBrain NeoplasmsCognition DisordersConsensusDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMeningeal CarcinomatosisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeuroimagingNeurologistsObserver VariationPostoperative CareReproducibility of ResultsTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31605786
PMCPMC9527087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.