Evidence Hub

Phase 3 trials of stereotactic radiosurgery with or without whole-brain radiation therapy for 1 to 4 brain metastases: individual patient data meta-analysis

A. Sahgal, H. Aoyama, M. Kocher, Binod Neupane, S. Collette, M. Tago, P. Shaw, J. Beyene et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2015

389 participants · 409 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To perform an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with or without whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for patients presenting with 1 to 4 brain metastases.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Three trials were identified through a literature search, and IPD were obtained. Outcomes of interest were survival, local failure, and distant brain failure. The treatment effect was estimated after adjustments for age, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) score, number of brain metastases, and treatment arm.

RESULTS

A total of 364 of the pooled 389 patients met eligibility criteria, of whom 51% were treated with SRS alone and 49% were treated with SRS plus WBRT. For survival, age was a significant effect modifier (P=.04) favoring SRS alone in patients ≤50 years of age, and no significant differences were observed in older patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) for patients 35, 40, 45, and 50 years of age were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.90), 0.52 (95% CI = 0.29-0.92), 0.58 (95% CI = 0.35-0.95), and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.42-0.99), respectively. Patients with a single metastasis had significantly better survival than those who had 2 to 4 metastases. For distant brain failure, age was a significant effect modifier (P=.043), with similar rates in the 2 arms for patients ≤50 of age; otherwise, the risk was reduced with WBRT for patients >50 years of age. Patients with a single metastasis also had a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 389 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free