ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Comparison of 2 stereotactic radiotherapy regimens for brain metastases: Is higher always better?
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a preferred treatment for brain metastases (BMs) due to its precision, minimizing neurocognitive side effects compared to whole-brain radiotherapy. However, the optimal dose-fractionation regimen for balancing local tumor control and minimizing radiation necrosis (RN) remains debated. This study compares 2 commonly used fractionated SRS regimens: 23.1Gy in 3 fractions and 27Gy in 3 fractions. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 1348 BMs treated with fractionated SRS between 2014 and 2023. Treatment planning used inhomogeneous dose delivery on a TrueBeam STX linac, delivering either 23.1Gy/3 fractions or 27Gy/3 fractions to the periphery (33Gy to the isocenter). Outcomes included local relapse-free survival (LRFS), RN-free survival (RNFS) and symptomatic RN-free survival (SRNFS), analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Impact of the main clinical factors (BMs volume, histology of the primary, concomitant systemic therapies and history of radiotherapy) were analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Results: Median follow-up was 12.0 months for LRFS and 11.0 months for RNFS. The 27Gy regimen showed a non-significant improvement in LRFS (HR: 0.66, 95% CI9: 0.43-1.01) but significantly increased the risk of both RN (HR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.60-3.26) and symptomatic RN (HR: 3.74, 95% CI: 1.93-7.26). On multivariate analysis, choice of the SRS protocol was an independent predictor of RN. Conclusions: The 27Gy regimen offers modest improvements in local control but significantly increases the risk of both RN and symptomatic RN. These results emphasize the need for personalized SRS regimens and further exploration of dose optimization strategies to improve therapeutic outcomes.
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.