ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2026
Neoadjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neoadjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has emerged as a novel therapeutic option in managing patients with brain metastasis (BM). Neoadjuvant SRS can address the current limitations of postoperative SRS through accurate lesion delineation and improved radiation dosimetry. This study evaluated the role of neoadjuvant SRS in patients with BM. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted. Studies that assessed the local control (LC), distant brain failure (DBF), leptomeningeal disease (LMD), overall survival (OS), and adverse radiation effects (ARE) rates in neoadjuvant SRS in BM were included. Results: Ten studies involving 791 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled 12- and 24-month LC rate of 91% (95% CI: 84%-96%) and 89% (95% CI: 81%-94%), respectively. The meta-analysis revealed 12- and 24-month DBF rates of 35% (95% CI: 31%-39%) and 44% (95% CI: 40%-47%), respectively. The meta-analysis exhibited a pooled 12- and 24-month LMD rate of 4% (95% CI: 2%-5%) and 5% (95% CI: 3%-7%), respectively. The meta-analysis showed a pooled 12- and 24-month ARE rate of 4% (95% CI: 3%-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 3%-7%), respectively. The meta-regression demonstrated that hypofractionated SRS (HF-SRS) was associated with a more favorable LC rate than single-fraction SRS (SF-SRS). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant SRS is a promising option for BMs, offering favorable outcomes and a low toxicity profile. HF-SRS may be linked to a more favorable outcome than SF-SRS. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to compare neoadjuvant and postoperative SRS alongside evaluations of SF-SRS and HF-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.