↓ Skip to main content

Stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy after intracranial metastasis resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy after intracranial metastasis resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Radiation Oncology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13014-017-0840-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nayan Lamba, Ivo S. Muskens, Aislyn C. DiRisio, Louise Meijer, Vanessa Briceno, Heba Edrees, Bilal Aslam, Sadia Minhas, Joost J. C. Verhoeff, Catharina E. Kleynen, Timothy R. Smith, Rania A. Mekary, Marike L. Broekman

Abstract

In patients with one to three brain metastases who undergo resection, options for post-operative treatments include whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of the resection cavity. In this meta-analysis, we sought to compare the efficacy of each post-operative radiation modality with respect to tumor recurrence and survival. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched through June 2016 for cohort studies reporting outcomes of SRS or WBRT after metastasis resection. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using fixed-effect and random-effect models for local recurrence, distant recurrence, and overall survival. Eight retrospective cohort studies with 646 patients (238 with SRS versus 408 with WBRT) were included in the analysis. Comparing SRS to WBRT, the overall crude risk ratio using the fixed-effect model was 0.59 for local recurrence (95%-CI: 0.32-1.09, I(2): 3.35%, P-heterogeneity = 0.36, 3 studies), 1.09 for distant recurrence (95%-CI: 0.74-1.60, I(2): 50.5%, P-heterogeneity = 0.13; 3 studies), and 2.99 for leptomeningeal disease (95% CI 1.55-5.76; I(2): 14.4% p-heterogeneity: 0.28; 2 studies). For the same comparison, the risk ratio for median overall survival was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.41-0.54; I(2): 79.1%, P-heterogeneity < 0.01; 4 studies) in a fixed-effect model, but was no longer significant (0.63; 95%-CI: 0.40-1.00) in a random-effect model. SRS was associated with a lower risk of leukoencephalopathy (RR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.33, 1 study), yet with a higher risk of radiation-necrosis (RR: 19.4, 95% CI: 1.21-310, 1 study). Based on retrospective cohort studies, the results of this study suggest that SRS of the resection cavity may offer comparable survival and similar local and distant control as adjuvant WBRT, yet may be associated with a higher risk for developing leptomeningeal disease. Future research on SRS should focus on achieving a better understanding of the various factors that may favor SRS over WBRT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Other 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 37 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 43 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,775,034
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#235
of 2,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,389
of 315,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#3
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,069 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.