ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Assessment of real-world surveillance strategies for patients undergoing systemic therapy for brain metastases.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Radiotherapy has long been first-line treatment for brain metastases. However, CNS penetrating systemic therapies are increasingly used as first-line alternatives. There is little evidence guiding surveillance in this setting. Here we retrospectively assessed surveillance strategies at a single institution and associated outcomes. Methods: Records from 33 patients, evaluated from 2021-2024 and treated with systemic therapy alone for active brain metastases, were reviewed. Time from diagnosis to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd surveillance MRI, incidence of intracranial progression, survival, and neurological adverse events were assessed. Patients were stratified by whether treatment was supported by the 2021 ASCO-SNO-ASTRO guidelines. Results: Treatment met guidelines for 14/33 patients. Median (range) time to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd MRI was 45 (18-207), 95 (46-204), and 180 (74-329) days, respectively. One-year cumulative incidence of local progression in the guideline group was 0.43 (95% CI [0.18-0.66]) and in the non-guideline group was 0.32 (95% CI [0.13-0.52], p=0.5). One-year cumulative incidence of brain radiation in the guideline group was 0.29 (95% CI [0.09-0.53]) and in the non-guideline group was 0.44 (95% CI [0.22-0.64], p=0.87). Two patients experienced safety events on systemic therapy (seizures). Discussion: Use of CNS-penetrating systemic therapies to treat brain metastases outpaced national guidelines in this study. While surveillance imaging frequency was variable and recurrences were common, many patients were able to delay radiation for over one year, with infrequent safety events. As interest in and options for CNS-penetrating systemic therapy grow, evidence-based guidelines for surveillance will be warranted.
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.