↓ Skip to main content

Surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy for people with single or solitary brain metastasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy for people with single or solitary brain metastasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012086.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafel Fuentes, Dimelza Osorio, José Expósito Hernandez, Daniel Simancas-Racines, Maria José Martinez-Zapata, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Abstract

Brain metastases occur when cancer cells spread from their original site to the brain and are a frequent cause of morbidity and death in people with cancer. They occur in 20% to 40% of people during the course of their disease. Brain metastases are also the most frequent type of brain malignancy. Single and solitary brain metastasis is infrequent and choosing the most appropriate treatment is a clinical challenge. Surgery and stereotactic radiotherapy are two options. For surgery, tumour resection is performed using microsurgical techniques, while in stereotactic radiotherapy, external ionising radiation beams are precisely focused on the brain metastasis. Stereotactic radiotherapy may be given as a single dose, also known as single dose radiosurgery, or in a number of fractions, also known as fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. There is uncertainty regarding which treatment (surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy) is more effective for people with single or solitary brain metastasis. To assess the effectiveness and safety of surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy for people with single or solitary brain metastasis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, March 2018), MEDLINE and Embase up to 25 March 2018 for relevant studies. We also searched trials databases, grey literature and handsearched relevant literature. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy, either a single fraction (stereotactic radiosurgery) or multiple fractions (fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy) for treatment of single or solitary brain metastasis. Two review authors screened all references, evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias, and performed data extraction. The primary outcomes were overall survival and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and quality of life . We analysed overall survival and progression-free survival as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and analysed adverse events as risk ratios (RRs). For quality of life we used mean difference (MD). Two RCTs including 85 participants met our inclusion criteria. One study included people with single untreated brain metastasis (n = 64), and the other included people with solitary brain metastasis (22 consented to randomisation and 21 were analysed). We identified a third trial reported as completed and pending results this may be included in future updates of this review. The two included studies were prematurely closed due to poor participant accrual. One study compared surgery plus whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) versus stereotactic radiosurgery alone, and the second study compared surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT. Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity between trial interventions. The overall certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes due to high risk of bias and imprecision.We found no difference in overall survival in either of the two comparisons. For the comparison of surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery alone: HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.77; 64 participants, very low-certainty evidence. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision. For the comparison of surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT: HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.42; 21 participants, low-certainty evidence. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Adverse events were reported in both trial groups in the two studies, showing no differences for surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery alone (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.44; 64 participants) and for surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.98; 21 participants). Most of the adverse events were related to radiation toxicities. We considered the certainty of the evidence from the two comparisons to be very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.There was no difference in progression-free survival in the study comparing surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.38; 21 participants, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty due to imprecision. This outcome was not clearly reported for the other comparison. In general, there were no differences in quality of life between the two studies. The study comparing surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT found no differences after two months using the QLQ-C30 global scale (MD -10.80, 95% CI -44.67 to 23.07; 14 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision. Currently, there is no definitive evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy on overall survival, adverse events, progression-free survival and quality of life in people with single or solitary brain metastasis, and benefits must be decided on a case-by-case basis until well powered and designed trials are available. Given the difficulties in participant accrual, an international multicentred approach should be considered for future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 37 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#9,394,816
of 17,428,793 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,021
of 11,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,111
of 284,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,428,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 284,840 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.