The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identification of an optimal subgroup for treatment evaluation of patients with brain metastases using rtog study 7916
Open accessAbstract
The overall poor prognosis of brain metastases patients has complicated the evaluation of treatment effectiveness in previous clinical trials involving radiation therapy. Therapy has not been seen to alter survival, which is generally short in these patients. Possible benefits of the treatments tested may be better assessed using a favorable group of patients who are at lower risk of dying quickly from cancer. The determination of a patient subgroup having prolonged survival allows for improvement in the design and analysis of subsequent clinical trials. An optimal patient group was identified in an RTOG study (7916) that evaluated two fractionation schedules (30 Gy/10 fractions/2 weeks and 20 Gy/6 fractions/3 weeks) with or without the administration of misonidazole (MISO) in the treatment of brain metastases. A Cox regression model was used to identify the pretreatment characteristics associated with a favorable prognosis for survival: Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) of 70-100, an absent/controlled primary tumor, age less than 60 years, and metastatic spread limited to the brain. A logistic model confirmed that the odds of surviving at least 200 days depend on these pretreatment characteristics. Patients with all four favorable characteristics constitute 11% of the evaluable study population and have a predicted 200 day survival of 52%. Prognostically favorable subgroups have been identified as patients having at least three of these four favorable characteristics. These patients have predicted probabilities of 200 day survival between 33 and 52%. Conversely, unfavorable subgroups are defined as patients having two or less favorable characteristics. Subsequent verification of these results by a second data set is warranted. The prognostically favorable characteristics have been used to define the patient population in a current RTOG study evaluating accelerated radiation therapy in patients with brain metastases.
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
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001616 · Cited by 3,718
Cited by
Treatment of single brain metastasis: Radiotherapy alone or combined with neurosurgery
Vecht, C. J., Haaxma‐Reiche, H., Noordijk, E. M., Padberg, G. W., Voormolen, J. H. C., Hoekstra, F. H., Tans, J. T. J., Lambooij, N., Metsaars, J. A. L., Wattendorff, A. R., et al. (1993) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.410330605 · Cited by 1,049
Metadata
- Authors
- Diener-West, M., Dobbins, T. W., Phillips, T. L., & Nelson, D. F.
- Venue
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1989-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 669-673
- ISSN
- 0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053780613
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.40
- 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: Identification of an optimal subgroup for treatment evaluation of patients with brain metastases using rtog study 7916. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0360-3016(89)90483-5
- The paper
- Diener-West, M., Dobbins, T. W., Phillips, T. L., & Nelson, D. F. (1989). Identification of an optimal subgroup for treatment evaluation of patients with brain metastases using rtog study 7916. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(89)90483-5
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.