Hearing preservation following fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas: prognostic implications of cochlear dose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The goal in this study was to evaluate hearing preservation rates and to determine prognostic factors for this outcome following fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) of vestibular schwannoma. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with serviceable hearing who received FSRT between May 1998 and December 2003 were identified. Clinical and audiometry data were collected prospectively. The prescription dose was 45 Gy in 25 fractions prescribed to the 90% isodose line. The median follow-up duration was 36.5 months (range 12-85 months). The actuarial 2- and 4-year local control rates were 100 and 95.7%, respectively. Permanent trigeminal and facial nerve complications were 0 and 6%, respectively. The actuarial 2- and 3-year serviceable hearing preservation rates were both 63%. The median loss in speech reception threshold was 15 dB (range--10 to 65 dB). The radiotherapy dose to the cochlea was the only significant prognostic factor for hearing deterioration. Radiotherapy dose to the cochlear nucleus, patient age, sex, pre-FSRT hearing grade, tumor volume, and intracanalicular tumor volume failed to show any significance as prognostic factors. RESULTS: Five cases were replanned with four different radiotherapy techniques (namely arcs, dynamic arcs, static conformal fields, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy), with the cochlea defined as an organ at risk. In all cases, replanning resulted in statistically significant reduction in radiation to the cochlea (p = 0.001); however, no single replanning technique was found to be superior. CONCLUSIONS: The radiation dose to the cochlea is strongly predictive for subsequent hearing deterioration. It is essential for the cochlea to be outlined as an organ at risk, and for radiation techniques to be optimized, to improve long-term hearing preservation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".