The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline
Open accessAbstract
QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with other treatment modalities? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with newly diagnosed solid brain metastases amenable to SRS; lesions amenable to SRS are typically defined as measuring less than 3 cm in maximum diameter and producing minimal (less than 1 cm of midline shift) mass effect. Recommendations SRS plus WBRT vs. WBRT alone Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT leads to significantly longer patient survival compared with WBRT alone for patients with single metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or = 70.Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior in terms of local tumor control and maintaining functional status when compared to WBRT alone for patients with 1-4 metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or =70.Level 2 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT may lead to significantly longer patient survival than WBRT alone for patients with 2-3 metastatic brain tumors.Level 3 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS<70 [corrected].Level 4 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS < 70. SRS plus WBRT vs. SRS alone Level 2 Single-dose SRS alone may provide an equivalent survival advantage for patients with brain metastases compared with WBRT + single-dose SRS. There is conflicting class I and II evidence regarding the risk of both local and distant recurrence when SRS is used in isolation, and class I evidence demonstrates a lower risk of distant recurrence with WBRT; thus, regular careful surveillance is warranted for patients treated with SRS alone in order to provide early identification of local and distant recurrences so that salvage therapy can be initiated at the soonest possible time. Surgical Resection plus WBRT vs. SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, vs. SRS plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3: Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. SRS alone vs. WBRT alone Level 3 While both single-dose SRS and WBRT are effective for treating patients with brain metastases, single-dose SRS alone appears to be superior to WBRT alone for patients with up to three metastatic brain tumors in terms of patient survival advantage.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.713 · Cited by 4,808
Cited by
Yamamoto, M., Serizawa, T., Shuto, T., Akabane, A., Higuchi, Y., Kawagishi, J., Yamanaka, K., Sato, Y., Jokura, H., Yomo, S., et al. (2014) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70061-0 · Cited by 1,447
Weickhardt, A. J., Scheier, B., Burke, J. M., Gan, G., Lu, X., Bunn, P. A., Aisner, D. L., Gaspar, L. E., Kavanagh, B. D., Doebele, R. C., et al. (2012) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1097/jto.0b013e3182745948 · Cited by 684
Self-citationTsao, M. N., Rades, D., Wirth, A., Lo, S. S., Danielson, B. L., Gaspar, L. E., Sperduto, P. W., Vogelbaum, M. A., Radawski, J. D., Wang, J. Z., et al. (2012) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2011.12.004 · Cited by 587
Self-citationGaspar, L. E., Mehta, M. P., Patchell, R. A., Burri, S. H., Robinson, P. D., Morris, R. E., Ammirati, M., Andrews, D. W., Asher, A. L., Cobbs, C. S., et al. (2010) · Journal of Neuro-Oncology · doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0060-9 · Cited by 299
Self-citationReview of clinical applications of radiation-enhancing nanoparticles
Scher, N., Bonvalot, S., Le Tourneau, C., Chajon, E., Verry, C., Thariat, J., & Calugaru, V. (2020) · Biotechnology Reports · doi:10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00548 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Linskey, M. E., Andrews, D. W., Asher, A. L., Burri, S. H., Kondziolka, D., Robinson, P. D., Ammirati, M., Cobbs, C. S., Gaspar, L. E., Loeffler, J. S., McDermott, M., Mehta, M. P., Mikkelsen, T., Olson, J. J., Paleologos, N. A., Patchell, R. A., Ryken, T. C., & Kalkanis, S. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Neuro-Oncology
- Published
- 2009-12-04
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-68
- ISSN
- 0167-594X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7373
- OpenAlex
- W2155014512
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11060-009-0073-4
- The paper
- Linskey, M. E., Andrews, D. W., Asher, A. L., Burri, S. H., Kondziolka, D., Robinson, P. D., Ammirati, M., Cobbs, C. S., Gaspar, L. E., Loeffler, J. S., McDermott, M., Mehta, M. P., Mikkelsen, T., Olson, J. J., Paleologos, N. A., Patchell, R. A., Ryken, T. C., & Kalkanis, S. N. (2010). The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-009-0073-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.