Outcome of Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Patients with Uncontrolled Acromegaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Linear accelerator based stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) has been used for the treatment of pituitary tumours; however, little is known concerning the use of this modality for the treatment of patients with acromegaly. We have prospectively studied the short-term outcome of SRT in 12 acromegaly patients who failed to achieve biochemical remission despite surgery and/or pharmacologic therapy. METHODS: We identified all patients who had biochemically uncontrolled acromegaly and were treated with SRT between April 2003 and December 2006. All patients were followed prospectively based on a pre-defined protocol that included Goldman visual field examination, MRI of the sella, and pituitary hormone testing at 3, 6, 12 months, and then yearly. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients with acromegaly were treated with SRT. There were 9 females and the median age of the group was 50 years. The median follow-up was 28.5 months during which time the mean tumor volume decreased by 40%, the median GH fell from 4.1 microg/L to 1.3 microg/L (p = 0.003) and the median IGF-1 dropped more than half from 545.5 microg/L to 260.5 microg/L (p = 0.002). Four patients achieved normal, while an additional 2 achieved near-normal, IGF-1 levels. One patient was able to discontinue and two were able to reduce their acromegaly medications while maintaining a normal IGF-1. A new pituitary hormonal deficit was found at 24 months in one patient who developed hypoadrenalism requiring corticosteroid replacement. CONCLUSION: Based on our early experience, we believe that SRT should be considered in treating patients with uncontrolled acromegaly.
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".