Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40596961›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2025

A retrospective propensity-matched study comparing whole-brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost to whole-brain radiotherapy alone for brain metastases.

Zheqing Liu, Xiaojing Du, Meiling Deng, Yuanyuan Chen, Shaoxiong Wu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Zheqing Liu *Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, P.R. China.
Xiaojing Du *Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, P.R. China.
Meiling DengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, P.R. China.
Yuanyuan ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, P.R. China.
Shaoxiong WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, P.R. China. wushx@sysucc.org.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of whole brain radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (WBRT-SIB) in comparison to whole brain radiation therapy alone (WBRT-alone) is yet unknown, despite the fact that its use in clinic is growing. To investigate the variations in intracranial control and overall survival (OS) between the two approaches, we conducted a matching comparison for patients with brain metastases (BM).

methodFrom January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, a total of 245 BM patients were eligible for inclusion, including 154 patients who received WBRT-alone (30 Gy/10 fractions) and 91 patients who received WBRT-SIB (40-50 Gy/10 fractions). 1:1 propensity score matching was used to select the patients with balanced baseline characteristics. The intracranial control and OS condition were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method, Log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard regression model.

results138 patients were matched into the WBRT-SIB group and the WBRT-alone group. Of these, 113 (81.9%) patients had BM originating from the lungs, and 124 (89.9%) patients had more than 3 intracranial lesions. After the initiation of radiotherapy, the WBRT-SIB group and the WBRT-alone group had respective 2-year intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), local progression-free survival (iLPFS), and distant progression-free survival (iDPFS) of 46.2% and 24.5% (p = 0.017), 49.4% and 29.8% (p = 0.033), and 68.6% and 54.4% (p = 0.040). There was no significant difference in OS (22.2 vs. 19.0 months, p = 0.768). However, in the exploratory subgroup analysis of infratentorial with/without supratentorial metastases (n = 96), the WBRT-SIB group showed a significantly better OS than the WBRT-alone group (24.6 vs.17.2 months, p = 0.040). Furthermore, the Cox proportional hazard model of this subgroup revealed that WBRT-SIB (p = 0.039) and systemic therapy after radiotherapy (p = 0.002) were independent prognostic factors for OS. There was no difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 acute brain radiation reactions between the two groups (24.6% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.290).

conclusionWBRT-SIB is a promising strategy for patients with BM. Compared to WBRT alone, WBRT-SIB can significantly prolong the intracranial PFS (including local and distant PFS). Additionally, while WBRT-SIB did not improve OS in the entire cohort, the OS benefit for patients with BM accompanied by infratentorial involvement warrants further exploration.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsCranial IrradiationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBrain metastasesPrognosisSimultaneous integrated boostWhole brain radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID40596961
PMCPMC12211532

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.