Adjuvant or radical fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with pituitary functional and nonfunctional macroadenoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) for patients with pituitary macroadenoma (PMA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between March 2000 and March 2009, 27 patients (male to female ratio, 1.25) with PMA underwent SFRT (median dose, 50.4 Gy). Mean age of the patients was 56.5 years (range, 20.3 - 77.4). In all but one patient, SFRT was administered for salvage treatment after surgical resection (transphenoidal resection in 23, transphenoidal resection followed by craniotomy in 2 and multiple transphenoidal resections in another patient). In 10 (37%) patients, the PMAs were functional (3 ACTH-secreting, 3 prolactinomas, 2 growth hormone-secreting and 2 multiple hormone-secretion). Three (11.1%) and 9 (33.3%) patients had PMA abutting and compressing the optic chiasm, respectively. Mean tumor volume was 2.9 ± 4.6 cm3. Eighteen (66.7%) patients had hypopituitarism prior to SFRT. The mean follow-up period after SFRT was 72.4 ± 37.2 months. RESULTS: Tumor size decreased for 6 (22.2%) patients and remained unchanged for 19 (70.4%) other patients. Two (7.4%) patients had tumor growth inside the prescribed treatment volume. The estimated 5-year tumor growth control was 95.5% after SFRT. Biochemical remission occurred in 3 (30%) patients with functional PMA. Two patients with normal anterior pituitary function before SFRT developed new deficits 25 and 65 months after treatment. The 5-year survival without new anterior pituitary deficit was thus 95.8%. Five patients with visual field defect had improved visual function and 1 patient with no visual defect prior to SFRT, but an optic chiasm abutting tumor, had a decline in visual function. The estimated 5-year vision and pituitary function preservation rates were 93.2% and 95.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SFRT is a safe and effective treatment for patients with PMA, although longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. In this study, approximately 1 patient with visual field defect out of two had an improved visual function.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".