Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery and immune checkpoint inhibitors: An international meta-analysis of individual patient data

Lehrer, Eric J., Peterson, Jennifer, Brown, Paul D., Sheehan, Jason P., Quiñones-Hinojosa, Alfredo, Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Trifiletti, Daniel M.·2019·Radiotherapy and Oncology
DOI 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.08.025
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE While the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is becoming more widely used in the treatment of brain metastases (BM), there is a paucity of prospective data to validate both the safety and efficacy, as well as the optimal timing of these two therapies relative to one another. METHODS A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify 17 studies across 15 institutions in 3 countries. Inclusion criteria were patients: diagnosed with BM; treated with SRS/ICI, either concurrently or non-concurrently; with at least one of the primary or secondary outcome measures reported. Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird method were performed. The primary outcome was 1-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC), 1-year regional brain control (RBC), and radionecrosis incidence. RESULTS A total of 534 patients with 1,570 BM were included. The 1-year OS was 64.6% and 51.6% for concurrent and non-concurrent therapy, respectively (p < 0.001). Local control at 1-year was 89.2% and 67.8% for concurrent and non-concurrent therapy, respectively (p = 0.09). The RBC at 1-year was 38.1% and 12.3% for concurrent and ICI administration prior to SRS, respectively (p = 0.049). The overall incidence of radionecrosis for all studies was 5.3%. CONCLUSIONS Concurrent administration of SRS/ICI may be associated with improved safety and efficacy versus sequential therapy. These findings, however, are hypothesis-generating and require further validation by ongoing and planned prospective trials.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.08.025

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 65 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Lehrer, E. J., Peterson, J., Brown, P. D., Sheehan, J. P., Quiñones-Hinojosa, A., Zaorsky, N. G., & Trifiletti, D. M.
Venue
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
130
Pages
104-112
ISSN
0167-8140 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.radonc.2018.08.025
OpenAlex
W2890381929
Cited by
264
References
65
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Treatment of brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery and immune checkpoint inhibitors: An international meta-analysis of individual patient data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.08.025
The paper
Lehrer, E. J., Peterson, J., Brown, P. D., Sheehan, J. P., Quiñones-Hinojosa, A., Zaorsky, N. G., & Trifiletti, D. M. (2019). Treatment of brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery and immune checkpoint inhibitors: An international meta-analysis of individual patient data. Radiotherapy and Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.08.025

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.