e14017 Background: The role of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is well established in the setting of one to four brain metastases (BM), offering effective control with reduced neurocognitive toxicity compared with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). However, for patients with five or more BM, the optimal radiation strategy remains uncertain, and comparative outcome data are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare overall survival (OS) between SRS and WBRT in patients with ≥ 5 BM. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify comparative studies of SRS versus WBRT in patients with ≥5 brain metastases. Retrospective and prospective studies reporting median OS with available cohort sizes were included. Comparative survival was summarized using pooled ratios of median survival within a random-effects meta-analytic framework. Results: Five comparative studies were included, comprising 226 patients treated with SRS and 261 treated with WBRT, including both retrospective and prospective cohorts. Sample-size–weighted summary (with reported medians) showed median OS was 8.1 months with SRS and 7.7 months with WBRT. Pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in OS between treatment strategies (ratio of median survival, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.73–1.46; p = 0.81). Conclusions: Among patients with ≥5 BM, SRS and WBRT were associated with comparable OS. These data suggest that OS alone may not guide treatment choice in this population, emphasizing the importance of careful patient selection. As focal therapies are increasingly incorporated into clinical practice for patients with higher intracranial disease burden, prospective, multi-institutional randomized clinical trials are needed to better define optimal management strategies. Summary of included studies reporting median overall survival (OS). Study Study Design SRS (n) WBRT (n) Median OS in SRS cohort (months) Median OS in WBRT cohort (months) Kim et al., 2009 Retrospective 29 39 5.6 7.2 Mizuno et al., 2019 Retrospective 24 20 7.3 7 .2 Li et al., 2020 Prospective, randomized 35 34 7.8 8.9 Bodensohn et al., 2023 Prospective, non-randomized 40 70 10.4 6.5 Aizer et al., 2025 Prospective, randomized 98 98 8.3 8.5
Jain et al. (Thu,) studied this question.