ReviewBrain & spine2025
Stereotactic aspiration alone or Ommaya placement and aspiration followed by stereotactic radiosurgery for cystic brain metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-term safety and efficacy of staged stereotactic radiosurgery with Ommaya reservoir aspiration for large cystic brain metastases.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cystic brain metastases (BMs) are often more challenging to treat than solid BMs. Stereotactic cyst aspiration for volume reduction followed by stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an alternative treatment modality that may benefit patients with large cystic BMs not favorable for SRS alone nor microsurgical resection. Research question: Here, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of stereotactic aspiration alone or reservoir (Ommaya) placement plus aspiration followed by SRS for cystic BMs. Material and methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed articles published between 1968 and December 31 Results: Overall rate of tumor control for combined treatment of Ommaya placement plus aspiration plus SRS was 81.2% (62.5-99.9%, p < 0.001) and for stereotactic aspiration plus SRS was 64.7% (46.1-83.3%, p < 0.001). Overall rate of further intervention for combined treatment of Ommaya placement plus aspiration plus SRS was 15.8% (p = 0.08) and for stereotactic aspiration plus SRS was 14.8% (5.3-24.4%, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate for combined treatment of Ommaya placement plus aspiration plus SRS was 12.8% (2.3-23.3%, p = 0.01) and for stereotactic aspiration plus SRS was 1.5% (p = 0.12). Discussion and conclusion: Combined treatment of Ommaya placement plus cyst aspiration plus SRS in cystic BMs yields better local control as compared to stereotactic aspiration plus SRS, with similar rate of further intervention between procedures. Aspiration of the cyst plus SRS should be considered for patients with cystic metastases not able to undergo open surgery or upfront SRS.
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.