SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2021
Post-operative management of brain metastases: GRADE-based clinical practice recommendations on behalf of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO).
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a systematic review of the current level of evidence on post-operative management following brain metastasectomy (namely: adjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery, whole brain radiotherapy or observation), and to propose a GRADE-based dedicated recommendation to inform Radiation Oncologists' clinical practice.
methodsA panel of expert Radiation Oncologists from the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology had defined the search question per the PICO methodology. Electronic databases were independently screened; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was adopted. The individual and pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as the pooled risk ratio (RR) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model.
resultsEight full-texts were retrieved: six retrospective studies and two randomized clinical trials. Outcomes of benefit and damage were analyzed for SRS + observation (PICO A) and SRS + WBRT. SRS allowed for increased rates of local control when compared to both observation and WBRT, while evidence was less conclusive for distant brain control, leptomeningeal disease control and overall survival. In the SRS, the incidence of severe radionecrosis was higher as compared to WBRT, despite neurocognitive deterioration rates were lower. Overall, SRS seems to favorably compare with observation and whole brain RT, despite the level of evidence for the recommendation was low and very low, respectively.
conclusionDespite low level of evidence, the panel concluded that the risk/benefit ratio probably favors adjuvant SRS as compared to the observation and whole brain RT as adjuvant treatments following brain metastasectomy (5 votes/5 participants, 100% attendance).
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.