Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,544

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trials

Open access
Gaspar, Laurie, Scott, Charles, Rotman, Marvin, Asbell, Sucha, Phillips, Theodore, Wasserman, Todd, McKenna, W.Gillies, Byhardt, Roger·1997·International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract

PURPOSE: Promising results from new approaches such as radiosurgery or stereotactic surgery of brain metastases have recently been reported. Are these results due to the therapy alone or can the results be attributed in part to patient selection? An analysis of tumor/patient characteristics and treatment variables in previous Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) brain metastases studies was considered necessary to fully evaluate the benefit of these new interventions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The database included 1200 patients from three consecutive RTOG trials conducted between 1979 and 1993, which tested several different dose fractionation schemes and radiation sensitizers. Using recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), a statistical methodology which creates a regression tree according to prognostic significance, eighteen pretreatment characteristics and three treatment-related variables were analyzed. RESULTS: According to the RPA tree the best survival (median: 7.1 months) was observed in patients < 65 years of age with a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) of at least 70, and a controlled primary tumor with the brain the only site of metastases. The worst survival (median: 2.3 months) was seen in patients with a KPS less than 70. All other patients had relatively minor differences in observed survival, with a median of 4.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis, we suggest the following three classes: Class 1: patients with KPS > or = 70, < 65 years of age with controlled primary and no extracranial metastases; Class 3: KPS < 70; Class 2- all others. Using these classes or stages, new treatment techniques can be tested on homogeneous patient groups.

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/s0360-3016(96)00619-0

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 2,544

Metadata

Authors
Gaspar, L., Scott, C., Rotman, M., Asbell, S., Phillips, T., Wasserman, T., McKenna, W. G., & Byhardt, R.
Venue
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-03
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
745-751
ISSN
0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047930883
Cited by
2,544
References
1
FWCI
12.43
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: Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0360-3016(96)00619-0
The paper
Gaspar, L., Scott, C., Rotman, M., Asbell, S., Phillips, T., Wasserman, T., McKenna, W. G., & Byhardt, R. (1997). Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trials. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(96)00619-0

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.