Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Prognostic Role of Pre-Treatment Symptoms for Survival of Patients Irradiated for Brain Metastases

DIRK RADES, HEINKE C. HANSEN, LIESA DZIGGEL, STEFAN JANSSEN and STEVEN E. SCHILD
Anticancer Research August 2019, 39 (8) 4273-4277; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13591
DIRK RADES
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dirk.rades@uksh.de
HEINKE C. HANSEN
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LIESA DZIGGEL
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
STEFAN JANSSEN
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
2Medical Practice for Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
STEVEN E. SCHILD
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: For treatment of brain metastases, a patient's survival prognosis should be considered. Existing survival scores appear complex and require complete tumor staging. For many patients, a faster and simpler tool would be helpful. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study investigated the prognostic value of the number of pre-treatment symptoms plus eight other factors on survival of patients irradiated for brain metastases. Other factors included whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) regimen, age, gender, performance score, primary tumor type, number of brain metastases, extracranial metastases, and interval between cancer diagnosis and WBRT. Results: The number of symptoms (p=0.002) and all other factors were significantly associated with survival on univariate analyses. On multivariate analysis, all factors but the number of symptoms (p=0.47) and primary tumor type (p=0.48) were significant. Conclusion: Since the number of symptoms was not an independent predictor of survival, it cannot replace existing scoring tools and may only serve for orientation.

  • Brain metastases
  • pre-treatment symptoms
  • whole-brain radiotherapy
  • survival prognosis

Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), either alone or in combination with local therapies, is the most common treatment for brain metastases worldwide (1). For patients with multiple cerebral lesions and those with a limited performance status or severe comorbidities, WBRT alone is frequently used. Common WBRT regimens include 5×4 Gy over 1 week, 10×3 Gy over 2 weeks and 20×2 Gy over 4 weeks (1). A shorter program is preferred for patients with poor survival prognoses in order to give them as much time as possible with their family and friends, and enable them to get important things done before they die. Administration of a short course of WBRT for these patients is supported by the fact that 5×4 Gy was shown not to be inferior to 10×3 Gy regarding survival and intracerebral control in patients with multiple brain metastases (2). In contrast, patients with more favorable survival prognoses benefit from longer-course WBRT including total doses beyond 30 Gy and doses per faction of less than 3 Gy in terms of improved outcomes (survival and intracerebral control) with less neurocognitive decline (3, 4). Thus, prediction of a patient's remaining lifetime appears crucial for selecting the optimal treatment. This aspect is already well-recognized and scoring instruments facilitating the prediction of individual survival prognoses have been developed. Major instruments for patients receiving WBRT include recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classification, graded prognostic assessment (GPA) classification, Rades Score and WBRT-30 score (5-8). All of these tools were based on four prognostic factors, including the presence or not of extracranial metastases. To use these instruments properly, i.e. to be able to state whether extracranial metastases are present, complete tumor staging is required, but often not possible. Complete staging can be time consuming and would delay the start of treatment. Moreover, it may be burdensome, particularly for patients with poor performance status and significant comorbidities. Thus, particularly for this latter group, a very simple scoring tool would be desirable for estimating their survival prognoses quickly and without significant effort. Such a tool could be based on the symptoms caused by the brain metastases, since patient history and physical examination are mandatory and available for all cases. The present study investigated the potential prognostic value of the number of pre-treatment symptoms for survival in a large cohort of patients irradiated for brain metastases. It was assumed that fewer symptoms were associated with a more favorable survival prognosis.

Patients and Methods

In a retrospective cohort study of patients who were treated with WBRT alone for brain metastases between 1994 and 2017, the number of pre-treatment symptoms (prior to WBRT and administration of corticosteroids) was evaluated for a potential association with survival. Data of patients obtained from an existing anonymized database were supplemented by data from patients treated at two German institutions between 2010 and 2017. To be eligible for this study, patients must have received WBRT alone and clinical symptoms must have been recorded in the patient files.

Symptoms included seizures, dysarthria, motor deficits, sensory deficits, neurocognitive deficits, headache, nausea/vomiting, vertigo, vision disturbance, and hearing problems. The number of symptoms was grouped as 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more symptoms. In addition to the number of symptoms, eight other factors were analyzed for survival including dose-fractionation of WBRT (5×4 Gy vs. 10×3 Gy vs. 20×2 Gy), age (≤62 vs. ≥63 years, median=63 years), gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG-PS) (0-1 vs. 2 vs. 3-4), primary tumor type [breast cancer vs. non-small cell lung cancer vs. small cell lung cancer vs. renal cell carcinoma vs. malignant melanoma vs. cancer of unknown primary (CUP) vs. gastrointestinal cancers vs. other tumors], number of brain metastases (1 vs. 2-3 vs. ≥4), extracranial metastases (no vs. yes) and interval between cancer diagnosis and WBRT (≤6 vs. ≥7 months, median=7 months). Distributions of these factors are shown in Table I.

It was planned to follow-up patients until death or for at least 6 months. They were censored at the time of death or last follow-up visit. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Lübeck (reference: 19-103A). Univariate analyses were performed with the Kaplan–Meier method supplemented by the log-rank test. The Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used to adjust the p-values derived from the univariate analysis. Since nine factors were investigated, p-values of less than 0.0056 were considered significant representing an alpha-level of less than 0.05. Significant factors were analyzed for independence and to minimize the influence of confounding variables in a multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazards model).

Results

A total of 1,907 patients, 1,354 from an existing anonymized database and 553 additional patients, met the eligibility criteria. On univariate analysis (Table II), improved survival was significantly associated with a lower number of pre-treatment symptoms (p=0.002). Since survival rates of patients with 0, 1 and 2 symptoms were similar, they were subsequently combined into one group. Survival rates of patients with 0-2 symptoms at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months were 50%, 32%, 24% and 18%, respectively, and significantly better than in patients with 3 or more symptoms (p<0.001).

On multivariate analysis, the number of pre-treatment symptoms (p=0.82) was not a significant factor (Table III). In an additional multivariate analysis, the different grouping of pre-treatment symptoms (0-2 vs. ≥3) did also not achieve significance (hazard ratio=1.02, 95% confidence interval=0.95-1.10, p=0.54).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Distribution of number of pre-treatment symptoms and other investigated factors.

Discussion

Despite recent developments favoring the treatment with neurosurgery or radiosurgery alone, a considerable number of patients with brain metastases are still candidates for WBRT (1). When aiming to provide an individual treatment including the WBRT regimen appropriately addressing the patient's personal situation and needs, the patient's remaining lifetime should be regarded.

For most patients with a short survival time, short-course WBRT with 5×4 Gy is the preferred regimen. In a previous study of 442 patients treated with WBRT alone for more than three brain metastases, 5×4 Gy was not inferior to 10×3 Gy with respect to survival and intracerebral control (2). Grade 3 radiation-related acute toxicity rates were 9% and 6%, respectively (p=0.35). For selected patients with very limited survival prognoses, best supportive care (BSC) including corticosteroids without WBRT may be considered. In a randomized trial of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer and very poor prognoses, BSC including dexamethasone was not inferior to BSC combined with 5×4 Gy of WBRT (9). In the WBRT group, more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were recorded. However, serious adverse events were not more common. The difference between mean quality-adjusted life-years was only 4.7 days, i.e. 41.7 days in the BSC alone group and 46.4 days in the BSC plus WBRT group. Thus, WBRT did not provide a significant benefit for this group of patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Results of the univariate analyses of survival at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.

In patients with more favorable survival prognoses, intracerebral control and survival are also important endpoints. These patients are not uncommon, and a considerable number receive WBRT without local treatment. For example, in the study performed to create the RPA classification, all patients received WBRT without local treatment. The 236 patients of RPA class 1 (representing 20% of the entire cohort) had a median survival time of 7.1 months (5). In the study creating the GPA classification, 9% (N=102) of patients had a median survival of 11.0 months, and an additional 16% (N=168) of patients had a median survival of 6.9 months (6). Patients with longer expected survival were reported to achieve better intracerebral control and survival with longer-course WBRT including total doses >30 Gy. A retrospective study of 184 patients with favorable prognoses compared 10×3 Gy and 20×2 Gy (4). Survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% and 14%, respectively, after 10×3 Gy, and 61% and 30%, respectively, after 20×2 Gy. Intracerebral control rates at 1 and 2 years were 28% and 11%, respectively, after 10×3 Gy, and 44% and 20%, respectively, after 20×2 Gy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Results of the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.

It becomes obvious that precise estimation of a patient's prognosis is important to optimally tailor the treatment. Several major scoring tools addressing this aspect exist (5-8). However, they are relatively complex and require complete tumor staging prior to the start of treatment which may result in a considerable treatment delay. Such delay is generally not acceptable for patients with brain metastases requiring relief of their debilitating symptoms. Thus, a very simple and fast tool would be preferable, particularly for patients with a poor performance status and severe brain symptoms. This study aimed to provide such a tool, simply based on the number of significant pre-treatment symptoms. In a large cohort of 1,907 patients treated with WBRT alone, 10 major pre-treatment symptoms were recorded. The majority of patients presented with one (42%) or two (33%) symptoms. Fewer than 10% were symptom-free, and 16% of patients had three or more symptoms. On univariate analysis, the number of symptoms was significantly inversely associated with survival. However, on multivariate analysis, significance was not achieved. Thus, the number of symptoms was not an independent predictor of survival and appeared not useful for the creation of a survival score. As the survival rates of patients with 0-2 symptoms were almost identical at 3 and 6 months and still similar at 9 and 12 months, we performed an additional analysis to investigate the potential prognostic value of the number of symptoms and compared 0-2 to ≥3 symptoms. However, again the results were significant on univariate but not on multivariate analysis. When interpreting these results, one should take into account the limitations of this study, mainly its retrospective design. Retrospective studies always bear the risk of hidden selection biases. Another limitation of the study is that it has not yet been externally validated. Since all patients included in this study received WBRT alone, the results cannot be generalized to other treatments for brain metastases including neurosurgical resection alone, radiosurgery alone and such local therapies combined with WBRT.

Since the number of symptoms was not significant on multivariate analyses, we feel that it cannot replace existing scoring tools designed to predict the survival prognoses of patients irradiated for brain metastases. It may only serve for orientation. One may consider re-evaluation of the existing scoring tools after the exclusion of visceral metastases as a predictive factor to avoid the need for complete tumor staging, which often results in a delay of treatment. This may also be considered for diagnosis-specific scoring tools (10-15).

In conclusion, the number of symptoms was not an independent predictor of survival in patients irradiated for brain metastases and, therefore, cannot replace existing tools. It may only serve for orientation. Since existing tools are based on presence/absence of visceral metastases, they require complete tumor staging. Such staging may result in treatment delay, which is often not acceptable, particularly for patients requiring urgent relief of symptoms. Existing tools may be re-evaluated after exclusion of visceral metastases as an essential component in order to hopefully provide a fast-to-use survival score based on independent prognostic factors.

Footnotes

  • Authors' Contributions

    D.R., H.C.H., S.J. and S.E.S. participated in the design of the study. D.R., H.C.H., L.D. and S.J. provided data. D.R. and S.E.S. performed the analyses and the interpretation of the data. D.R. and S.E.S. drafted the article, which was reviewed and approved in its final form by all Authors.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    On behalf of all Authors, the corresponding Author states that there is no conflict of interest related to this study.

  • Received May 28, 2019.
  • Revision received July 4, 2019.
  • Accepted July 5, 2019.
  • Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Tsao MN,
    2. Rades D,
    3. Wirth A,
    4. Lo SS,
    5. Danielson BL,
    6. Gaspar LE,
    7. Sperduto PW,
    8. Vogelbaum MA,
    9. Radawski JD,
    10. Wang JZ,
    11. Gillin MT,
    12. Mohideen N,
    13. Hahn CA,
    14. Chang EL
    : Radiotherapeutic and surgical management for newly diagnosed brain metastasis(es): An American Society for Radiation Oncology evidence-based guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2: 210-225, 2012. PMID: 25925626. DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2011.12.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Rades D,
    2. Kieckebusch S,
    3. Lohynska R,
    4. Veninga T,
    5. Stalpers LJ,
    6. Dunst J,
    7. Schild SE
    : Reduction of overall treatment time in patients irradiated for more than three brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69: 1509-1513, 2007. PMID: 17689033.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. DeAngelis LM,
    2. Delattre JY,
    3. Posner JB
    : Radiation-induced dementia in patients cured of brain metastases. Neurology 39: 789-796, 1989. PMID: 2725874.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Rades D,
    2. Panzner A,
    3. Dziggel L,
    4. Haatanen T,
    5. Lohynska R,
    6. Schild SE
    : Dose-escalation of whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastasis in patients with a favorable survival prognosis. Cancer 118: 3852-3859, 2012. PMID: 22170514. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26680
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Gaspar L,
    2. Scott C,
    3. Rotman M,
    4. Asbell S,
    5. Phillips T,
    6. Wasserman T,
    7. McKenna WG,
    8. Byhardt R
    : Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) brain metastases trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37: 745-751, 1997. PMID: 9128946.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Rades D,
    2. Dunst J,
    3. Schild SE
    : A new scoring system to predicting the survival of patients treated with whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases. Strahlenther Onkol 184: 251-255, 2008. PMID: 18427755. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-008-1831-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sperduto PW,
    2. Berkey B,
    3. Gaspar LE,
    4. Mehta M,
    5. Curran W
    : A new prognostic index and comparison to three other indices for patients with brain metastases: an analysis of 1,960 patients in the RTOG database. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70: 510-514, 2008. PMID: 17931798. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.074
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Rades D,
    2. Dziggel L,
    3. Nagy V,
    4. Segedin B,
    5. Lohynska R,
    6. Veninga T,
    7. Khoa MT,
    8. Trang NT,
    9. Schild SE
    : A new survival score for patients with brain metastases who received whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) alone. Radiother Oncol 108: 123-127, 2013. PMID: 23830191. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.06.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Mulvenna P,
    2. Nankivell M,
    3. Barton R,
    4. Faivre-Finn C,
    5. Wilson P,
    6. McColl E,
    7. Moore B,
    8. Brisbane I,
    9. Ardron D,
    10. Holt T,
    11. Morgan S,
    12. Lee C,
    13. Waite K,
    14. Bayman N,
    15. Pugh C,
    16. Sydes B,
    17. Stephens R,
    18. Parmar MK,
    19. Langley RE
    : Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole-brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 388: 2004-2014, 2016. PMID: 27604504. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Dziggel L,
    2. Gebauer N,
    3. Bartscht T,
    4. Schild SE,
    5. Rades D
    : Performance status and number of metastatic extra-cerebral sites predict survival after radiotherapy of brain metastases from thyroid cancer. Anticancer Res 38: 2391-2394, 2018. PMID: 29599366. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12488
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Janssen S,
    2. Hansen HC,
    3. Schild SE,
    4. Rades D
    : An instrument for estimating the 6-month survival probability after whole-brain irradiation alone for cerebral metastases from gynecological cancer. Anticancer Res 38: 3753-3756, 2018. PMID: 29848738. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12656
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Rades D,
    2. Dziggel,
    3. Schild SE
    : A specific survival score for patients receiving local therapy for single brain metastasis from a gynecological malignancy. In Vivo 32: 825-828, 2018. PMID: 29936465. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11314
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Rades D,
    2. Dziggel L,
    3. Manig L,
    4. Janssen S,
    5. Khoa MT,
    6. Duong VN,
    7. Khiem VH,
    8. Schild SE
    : Predicting survival after whole-brain irradiation for cerebral metastases in patients with cancer of the bladder. In Vivo 32: 633-636, 2018. PMID: 29695570. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11285
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Dziggel L,
    2. Schild SE,
    3. Veninga T,
    4. Bajrovic A,
    5. Rades D
    : Clinical factors asssociated with treatment outcomes following whole-brain irradiation in patients with prostate cancer. In Vivo 31: 35-38, 2017. PMID: 28064217. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Staackmann C,
    2. Janssen S,
    3. Schild SE,
    4. Rades D
    : A tool to predict the probability of intracerebral recurrence or new cerebral metastases after whole-brain irradiation in patients with head-and-neck cancer. Anticancer Res 38: 4199-4202, 2018. PMID: 2997055. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12714
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 39 (8)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 39, Issue 8
August 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prognostic Role of Pre-Treatment Symptoms for Survival of Patients Irradiated for Brain Metastases
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
14 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Prognostic Role of Pre-Treatment Symptoms for Survival of Patients Irradiated for Brain Metastases
DIRK RADES, HEINKE C. HANSEN, LIESA DZIGGEL, STEFAN JANSSEN, STEVEN E. SCHILD
Anticancer Research Aug 2019, 39 (8) 4273-4277; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13591

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Prognostic Role of Pre-Treatment Symptoms for Survival of Patients Irradiated for Brain Metastases
DIRK RADES, HEINKE C. HANSEN, LIESA DZIGGEL, STEFAN JANSSEN, STEVEN E. SCHILD
Anticancer Research Aug 2019, 39 (8) 4273-4277; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13591
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Neurological Death After Radiotherapy for Brain Metastases: Role of the LabBM Score
  • Pre-Treatment Seizures in Patients With 1-3 Cerebral Metastases Receiving Local Therapies Plus Whole-brain Radiotherapy
  • Seizures Prior to Whole-brain Irradiation for Metastatic Disease: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Association With Survival
  • The Results of Whole-brain Radiotherapy for Elderly Patients With Brain Metastases from Urinary Bladder Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Chemotherapy-induced Moderate to Severe Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients Receiving Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer
  • Efficacy and Prognostic Factors of Surgical Resection for Pulmonary Metastases From Ovarian Cancer
  • Appendectomy Mitigates Ulcerative Colitis Activity and Delays Colorectal Cancer Onset: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Brain metastases
  • pre-treatment symptoms
  • whole-brain radiotherapy
  • survival prognosis
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire