ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2025
The role of upfront radiation therapy for brain metastases in the era of CNS-active systemic therapies: a narrative review of clinical trial design and lessons learned.
Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSystemic therapies are increasingly being considered as primary treatments for brain metastases (BM), deferring the upfront use of local treatment modalities. However, evidence to support this paradigm shift is difficult to interpret given the volume of data published and the intricacies of the outcomes reported. The objective of this narrative review is to evaluate the current evidence guiding treatment selection for BM patients by assembling and analyzing a detailed dataset of clinical trials, completed and published during the last two decades.
methodsObstacles in interpreting the results of prospective systemic therapy clinical trials are detailed, including non-standardized study cohorts, inconsistent use of response assessment criteria, insufficient endpoint definition for central nervous system (CNS) efficacy, and under-reporting of previous radiotherapy. The paucity of prospective data to guide radiation therapy options is also addressed, and caveats of the available published evidence are detailed.
resultsProposed treatment and follow-up recommendations for patient with newly diagnosed BM are provided based on currently available evidence.
conclusionProspective trials evaluating contemporary treatment paradigms and defining the respective roles of systemic and local therapies are eagerly awaited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39961938What 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.