Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38292892›Full record

ReviewAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Management of Brain Metastases: A Case-Based Radiosurgery Society Practice Guideline.

Colton Ladbury, Michael Pennock, Tugba Yilmaz, Nii-Kwanchie Ankrah, Therese Andraos, Emile Gogineni, Grace Gwe-Ya Kim, Iris Gibbs, Helen A Shih, Jona Hattangadi-Gluth and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of intrafractional motion on targeting accuracy in frameless single-isocenter multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

16 authors.

Colton LadburyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Michael PennockDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Einstein Cancer Center, Bronx, New York.
Tugba YilmazDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Medical Faculty Hospital, Konya, Turkey.
Nii-Kwanchie AnkrahDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Therese AndraosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Emile GogineniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Grace Gwe-Ya KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California.
Iris GibbsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Helen A ShihDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jona Hattangadi-GluthDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California.
Samuel T ChaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Susan C PannulloDepartment of Neurological Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Ben SlotmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Kristin J RedmondDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Simon S LoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Michael SchulderDepartment of Neurosurgery, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Lake Success, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Brain metastases are common among adult patients with solid malignancies and are increasingly being treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). As more patients with brain metastases are becoming eligible for SRS, there is a need for practical review of patient selection and treatment considerations. Methods and Materials: Two patient cases were identified to use as the foundation for a discussion of a wide and representative range of management principles: (A) SRS alone for 5 to 15 lesions and (B) a large single metastasis to be treated with pre- or postoperative SRS. Patient selection, fractionation, prescription dose, treatment technique, and dose constraints are discussed. Literature relevant to these cases is summarized to provide a framework for treatment of similar patients. Results: Treatment of brain metastases with SRS requires many considerations including optimal patient selection, fractionation selection, and plan optimization. Conclusions: Case-based practice guidelines developed by the Radiosurgery Society provide a practical guide to the common scenarios noted above affecting patients with metastatic brain tumors.

Identifiers

PMID38292892
PMCPMC10823095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.